,  4  ,  IV  L  4  ^^ 


^^■^^ '' 

MAY   8  1913 
/A 


Pentateuchal  Studies 


BY 

V 

HAROLD  M.  WIENER,  M.A.,  LL.B. 

OF  LINCOLN'S  INN,   BARRISTER-AT-LAW 

Author  of 

"THE  ORIGIN  OF  THE  PENTATEUCH,"   "ESSAYS 

IN    PENTATEUCHAL  CRITICISM,"  ETC. 


OBERLIN,  OHIO,  U.S.A. 

BIBLIOTHECA  SACRA  COMPANY 

London:  Elliot  Stock,  7  Paternoster  Row,  E.  C. 
1912 


COPYRIGHT,    1912,   BY 

BIBLIOTHECA  SACRA  COMPANY 


Registered   at   Stationers'    Hall,    London,    England 


Printed  in  the  United  States  of  Amerieu 
Published  October,  1912 


THE   NEWS    PRINTING   COMPANY 
OBERLIN.  OHIO.  U.S.A. 


To 

The  Reverend  Professor  G.  Frederick  Wright,  D.D.,  LL.  D. 
in  gratitude  for  constant  help  and  friendship 


PREFACE 

This  book  is  a  sequel  to  my  "  Essays  in  Pentateuchal 
Criticism."  Of  the  studies  it  contains,  Nos.  16  and  17  ap- 
peared in  the  Princeton  Theological  Reviezv  for  1907,  the 
majority  are  reprinted  from  the  Bibliotheca  Sacra,  while  No. 
23  was  read  before  the  Victoria  Institute  and  has  already  been 
published  in  the  Journal  of  its  Transactions.  My  best  thanks 
are  due  to  the  editors  of  the  two  periodicals  and  to  the  Coun- 
cil of  the  Institute  for  the  kind  permission  to  include  the 
various  contributions  in  the  present  volume.  I  am  also  in- 
debted to  Drs.  Driver  and  Gordon  for  leave  to  republish  their 
letters. 

A  large  group  of  these  studies  is  concerned  with  the  text- 
ual criticism  of  the  Divine  appellations  in  Genesis,  and  the 
larger  question  of  which  it  forms  part,  the  textual  criticism 
of  the  Pentateuch.  In  order  that  the  position  with  regard  to 
these  may  be  properly  appreciated,  some  words  of  introduc- 
tion are  necessary. 

In  the  year  1753  Astruc  pubHshed  the  little  book  in  which 
was  first  propounded  the  theory  that  a  division  of  Genesis 
into  earlier  documents  might  be  effected  on  the  basis  of  the 
alternation  of  the  Divine  appellations  aided  by  other  criteria. 
This  became  the  starting-point  of  the  work  that,  in  the  course 
of  the  last  one  hundred  and  sixty  years,  has  given  us  the 
present  documentary  theory  of  the  Pentateuch,  which  at  the 
beginning  of  the  year  1908  was  held  by  almost  every  Hebrew 
professor  of  note  in  the  Protestant  universities  of  Northern 
Europe  and  America.  The  alternation  of  the  Divine  appella- 
tions was  regarded  as  so  important  and  so  certain  a  basis 
for  the   Pentateuchal  analvsis,  that,   e.g..   Dr.   Driver,   in  the 


vi  Pcntatcnchal  Studies 

eighth  edition  of  his  "  Introduction  to  the  Literature  of  the 
Old  Testament"  (p.  21),  reprints  a  passage  from  the  earUer 
editions  in  which  he  balances  the  cumulative  evidence  of  all 
the  other  criteria  throughout  the  entire  Pentateuch  against 
the  occurrence  of  the  Tetragrammaton  in  two  passages  of 
P  in  the  Massoretic  text  of  Genesis,  being  obviously  unable 
to  conceive  a  P  that  used  the  Tetragrammaton  in  Genesis.  It 
would  be  easy  to  cite  numerous  dicta  from  other  leading 
critics  to  the  same  effect.  Indeed,  the  three  main  documents 
that  were  supposed  to  be  represented  in  Genesis  (J,  E,  and  P) 
all  owed  their  very  names  to  the  clue,  P  having  long  been 
called  the  (first)  Elohist.  The  theory  was  regarded  as  in- 
vulnerable, and  is  still  so  treated  in  many  new  popular  books. 
Nevertheless,  a  point  of  view  was  possible  from  which  it 
is  seen  to  be  utterly  untenable,  and  a  number  of  writers  have 
reached  it  independently.  In  the  year  1903  J.  Lepsius  printed 
a  series  of  articles  in  the  Reich  Christ  i  in  which  he  drew  at- 
tention to  the  fact  that  the  LXX  does  not  always  confirm  the 
received  Hebrew  (Massoretic)  text  of  Genesis  in  regard  to 
the  Divine  appellations ;  in  the  same  year  J.  Dahse  published 
an  independent  study  in  the  Archiv  fi'ir  Rcligionszi'issensch'aft ; 
and  in  1904  a  paper  from  the  pen  of  H.  A.  Redpath  appeared 
in  the  American  Journal  of  Theology.  At  the  time  these 
studies,  which  were  quite  independent  of  one  another  and 
drew  different  inferences  from  the  facts,  were  not  much  no- 
ticed, though  Dahse's  article  has  influenced  some  Roman 
Catholic  scholars ;  but  in  1908  J.  Wellhausen,  the  leader  of 
the  documentary  theorists,  admitted  to  Dahse  that  he  had 
put  his  finger  on  a  sore  point  of  the  theory,  and  has  now 
given  permission  for  this  statement  to  be  published.  While 
they  differed  among  themselves  on  other  matters,  all  three 
writers  were  at  one  in  opposing  the  theory,  and  none  of  the 


Preface  vii 

three  at  that  time  extended  the  appHcation  of  scientific  text- 
ual criticism  to  the  other  supposed  criteria,  though  Lepsius 
made  a  number  of  arbitrary  changes  in  the  text. 

The  matter  attracted  fresh  attention  in  1908,  when  Eerd- 
mans,  Kuenen's  pupil  and  successor  in  the  Leyden  chair, 
published  the  first  part  of  his  "Alttestamentliche  Studien." 
Therein  he  severed  his  connection  with  the  documentary  the- 
ory which  he  had  previously  supported.  He  mentioned  the 
existence  of  Septuagintal  variants,  and  placed  some  reliance 
on  the  argument,  but  he  showed  acquaintance  with  only  a 
small  portion  of  the  existing  variants,  and  contributed  no 
adequate  discussion  even  of  these.  It  is  of  course  true  that 
the  oldest  existing  MS.  of  the  LXX  is  many  centuries  earlier 
than  any  Hebrew  MS.  of  Genesis,  but  that  fact  is  not  suffi- 
cient by  itself  to  establish  the  importance  or  legitimacy  of 
the  textual  method. 

The  present  writer's  attention  was  first  drawn  to  the  sub- 
ject by  a  notice  of  Dr.  Redpath's  paper,  and  in  January,  1909, 
he  published  in  the  Bibliotheca  Sacra  an  article  which  has 
since  been  incorporated  in  the  first  chapter  of  "  Essays  in 
Pentateuchal  Criticism."  This  led  to  a  discussion  in  the 
Expository  Times  and  elsewhere,  and,  in  the  issue,  a  large 
measure  of  support  has  been  secured  among  conservative 
scholars  in  England  and  America  for  the  application  of  text- 
ual criticism  to  the  Divine  appellations.  Lias,  Wright,  Tisdall, 
Kyle,  Reeve,  Griffith  Thomas,  and  Griffiths  having  all  given 
in  their  adhesion.  Meanwhile  Professor  Schlogl  (who  had 
been  working  at  the  subject  independently)  had  adopted  the 
method  in  Austria,  and  he  has  been  followed  by  Professor 
Weiss  in  the  same  country.  In  Holland  Dr.  Troelstra  has 
recently  given  it  the  weight  of  his  support  in  "  De  Naam 
Gods  in  den  Pentateuch,"  which  is  shortly  to  appear  in  Eng- 


viii  PciitatCHcIial  Studies 

lish  dress,  and  in  other  publicatjons  and  lectures.  There  are 
thus  a  rapidly  increasing  number  of  scholars  in  different 
countries  who  have  come  to  the  conclusion  that  the  methods 
of  the  last  one  hundred  and  sixty  years  are  indefensible,  and 
the  results  attained  by  their  adoption  worthless. 

So  much  for  those  who  either  had  never  been  publicly  com- 
mitted to  the  documentary  theory,  or  else  had  found  reason 
to  reverse  their  attitude.  What  has  been  the  answer  of  the 
followers  of  Astruc?  Nobody  has  been  found  to  produce  a 
reply  to  the  facts  and  arguments  alleged,  but  when  they  have 
had  occasion  to  express  themselves  in  public,  the  official  ad- 
herents of  the  school  have  adopted  one  or  other  of  four 
courses,  each  and  all  of  which  indicate  that  they  are  unable 
to  defend  their  theory  against  the  attacks  of  the  textual  critics. 

The  first  course  is  that  of  frankly  admitting  that  the  the- 
ory is  in  danger.  Naturally  the  exact  wording  of  the  ad- 
missions varies  with  each  individual.  As  already  stated, 
Wellhausen  himself  has  written  to  Dahse  describing  the  text- 
ual evidence  regarding  the  Divine  appellations  as  a  "sore 
point  "  (u'uiider  Pimkt)  of  the  theory.  Professor  E.  Sellin, 
of  Rostock,  whose  mind  has  been  influenced  by  other  con- 
siderations as  well,  goes  so  far  as  to  say :  "  It  will  be  seen 
that  we  stand  in  a  time  of  fermentation  and  transition,  and 
in  what  follows  we  present  our  own  opinion  merely  as  the 
hypothesis  that  seems  to  us  to  be  the  best  founded."  Simi- 
larly Professors  Toy  and  H.  P.  Smith,  who  had  suffered  for 
their  belief  in  the  higher  criticism  when  they  thought  it  true, 
have  now  made  the  important  admissions  that  are  cited  on 
pages  132  f.  To  realize  what  a  change  this  implies,  the  words 
that  Professor  W.  Robertson  Smith  wrote  in  1889  should  be 
recalled :  "  The  first  conditions  of  an  effective  comparison 
of  Hebrew  religion,  as  a  whole,  with  the  religion  of  the  other 


Preface  ix 

Semites,  were  lacking  so  long  as  the  historical  order  of  the 
Old  Testament  documents,,  and  especially  of  the  documents 
of  which  the  Pentateuch  is  made  up,  was  unascertained  or 
wrongly  apprehended;  but  thanks  to  the  labours  of  a  series 
of  scholars  (of  whom  it  is  sufficient  to  name  Kuenen  and 
Wellhausen,  as  the  men  whose  acumen  and  research  have 
carried  this  enquiry  to  a  point  where  nothing  of  vital  import- 
ance for  the  historical  study  of  the  Old  Testament  religion 
still  remains  uncertain),"  etc.  (Religion  of  the  Semites, 
preface).  To-day  Wellhausen  is  shaken.  Teaching  that  is 
subversive  of  the  whole  theory  is  given  at  Kuenen's  old  uni- 
versity, and  the  most  candid  minds  among  its  supporters  real- 
ize that  a  reexamination  of  the  whole  textual  and  historical 
field  is  essential. 

Unhappily,  few  of  the  higher  critics  are  as  candid  as  those 
just  cited,  and  hence  it  becomes  necessary  to  note  other  atti- 
tudes. The  second  main  line  of  conduct  is  tO'  ignore  the  facts 
and  argum.ents  altogether,  simply  repeating  the  old  exploded 
theories,  and  striving  to  keep  the  public  in  ignorance  of  the 
results  of  recent  research.  This  has  been  followed,  e.g.,  by 
Mr.  W.  E.  Addis,  who  contributed  to  the  Rcviezv  of  Theology 
and  Philosophy  a  notice  of  my  "  Essays  "  that  proceeded  on 
these  lines.  As  evidence  of  inability  to  meet  the  conservative 
case,  this  is  of  course  second  only  to  a  direct  admission. 

A  third  method  —  that  of  Professor  Barton  and  others  — 
is  exemplified  in  the  second  of  these  studies.  It  consists  of 
sneering  about  faith.  It  is  said  that  Wellhausen  once  com- 
pared his  own  teaching  with  that  of  some  of  his  followers  in 
the  words,  "  I  knew  the  Old  Testament  was  a  fraud,  but  I 
never  dreamt,  as  these  Scotch  fellows  do,  of  making  God  a 
party  to  the  fraud."  Now  the  view  of  textual  criticism  is 
that  the  Old  Testament  is  not   a   fraud,  but  has   undergone 


X  Pentatcuchal  Studies 

the  ordinary  vicissitudes  of  a  MS.  tradition,  and  must  be  sub- 
jected to  the  same  scientific  processes  as  all  other  writings 
that  have  passed  through  a  similar  experience.  In  view  of 
what  is  said  on  pages  13-18,  it  is  unnecessary  to  deal  further 
with  the  question  of  faith  ;  but  the  method  of  sneering  be- 
trays not  less  clearly  than  the  other  methods  the  inability  of 
the  documentary  theorists  to  answer  the  textual  case. 

The  fourth  method  is  the  most  regrettable  of  all.  It  con- 
sists of  the  deliberate  misrepresentation  of  facts,  and  is  prac- 
tised by  Doctors  Skinner,  Briggs,  and  Driver.  Numbers  8-11 
of  this  series  (which  should  be  read  consecutively)  are  con- 
cerned with  it.  and  the  reader  who  will  be  at  the  pains  of 
studying  these  carefully  and  impartially  will  inevitably  reach 
the  conclusion  that  not  one  of  these  men  is  a  whit  better  able 
to  meet  the  case  set  up  than  Wellhausen  himself.  Accusations 
of  direct  deceit  are  not  to  be  made  lightly ;  but  when  they 
become  necessary  they  should  be  made  so  plainly  that  no 
doubt  can  be  possible  as  to  the  issues  raised.  Every  impartial 
and  clear-headed  man  of  the  world  will  be  able  to  see  that 
No.  11  must  have  been  immediately  followed  by  proceedings 
for  libel  if  any  one  of  the  three  men  concerned  had  been  in 
a  position  to  vindicate  his  honor  in  the  witness-box  without 
committing  direct  perjury,  and  a  perusal  of  No.  10  will  help 
to  show  how  impossible  this  was.  Beyond  all  doubt  Astruc's 
theory  is  in  extremis  when  it  has  to  be  buttressed  by  the 
means  here  revealed. 

It  may,  however,  be  asked  how  far  the  establishment  of  the 
textual  method  will  go  towards  the  annihilation  of  the  dom- 
inant theories.  The  answer  must  be  dictated  by  a  number  of 
different  considerations.  There  are,  as  already  stated,  numer- 
ous admissions  in  the  work  of  influential  critical  writers  as 
to  the  im])ortance  of  the  Divine  appellations.     .Attemjits  may 


Preface  *  xi 

now  be  made  to  belittle  this  clue,  but  every  reader  of  any  crit- 
ical analysis  of  Genesis  knows  that  it  is  repeatedly  invoked  to 
effect  a  division.  Moreover,  it  is  impossible  to  apply  textual 
criticism  to  the  Divine  appellations  and  yet  to  refuse  to  apply 
it  throughout  the  Pentateuch.  Nobody  can  say,  "  Here  is  an 
old  document:  I  will  treat  some  340  words  of  it  in  the  same 
way  as  I  should  any  other  ancient  document,  but  I  will  not 
extend  this  treatment  to  any  other  word  of  it."  Either  the 
received  Hebrew  text  must  be  accepted  through  thick  and 
thin,  or  a  scientific  critical  text  must  be  constructed  through- 
out. A  number  of  instances  of  what  is  likely  to  happen  in  the 
latter  case  are  to  be  found  in  these  Studies.  I  understand 
from  Dahse,  who  has  been  working  at  the  story  of  Joseph 
and  the  passages  treated  by  me  as  glosses  in  No.  8,  that  he 
has  reached  independently  results  that  are  practically  iden- 
tical with  mine.  His  full  discussion  will  appear  in  "  Text- 
kritische  Materialien  zur  Hexateuchfrage  I.,"  which  is  now 
in  the  press  and  will  probably  be  published  at  about  the  same 
time  as  the  present  volume.  The  range  of  agreement  between 
us  appears  to  be  extensive,  but,  at  the  time  of  writing,  com- 
plete proofs  are  not  available.  I  have,  however,  seen  the  first 
112  pages,  and  am  able  to  say  that  the  work  will  prove  to  be 
one  of  the  most  important  contributions  to  the  criticism  of 
the  Pentateuch  that  have  come  from  Germany  for  many  years. 
The  instalment  now  in  the  press  is  limited  to  Genesis,  and 
will  presumably,  therefore,  not  treat  of  many  matters  outside 
it.  On  the  other  hand,  I  am  glad  to  observe  that  Cornill  (Zur 
Einleitung  in  das  Alte  Testament  (1912),  p.  22)  has  now  in- 
dependently taken  the  view  of  the  text  of  Ezekiel  xxxvii.  22 
and  24  which  is  set  out  on  page  162. 

While  the  textual  criticism  of  the  Pentateuch  looms  large 
in  the  present  volume,  a  number  of  studies  are  also  concerned 


xii  Pentateitchal  Studies 

with  various  phases  of  its  historical  interpretation,  especially 
with  the  Graf-Wellhausen  theory  of  the  history.  And  here 
the  plight  of  the  higher  critical  school  is  seen  to  be  not  less 
desperate.  In  my  "  Essays  "  and  elsewhere  I  have  shown  that 
the  reconstruction  of  the  history  of  Israel  rests  primarily  on 
the  inability  of  Wellhausen  and  his  followers  to  distinguish 
between  a  cairn  and  a  house  once  they  had  applied  the  term 
"  sanctuary  "  to  each  of  these  separate  and  dissimilar  objects. 
Apparently  I  have  so  far  influenced  Dr.  Driver  that,  in  his 
note  on  Exodus  xxi.  6  (see  ijifra,  p.  148),  he  expressly  points 
out  that  the  door  cannot  be  that  of  the  "  sanctuary  "  and  goes 
on  to  call  this  view  "  out  of  the  question  "  —  I  suppose  because 
he  has  at  last  realized  that  dubbing  a  stone  or  mound  a 
"  sanctuary  "  will  not  give  it  a  door.  The  letter  of  Decem- 
ber 7,  1911,  on  page  150  appears  to  hold  to  this,  but  on  May 
1,  1912,  he  wrote  a  Foreword  commending  Dr.  AIcNeile's  vol- 
ume on  "Deuteronomy :  Its  Place  in  Revelation."  In  this 
book  the  interpretation  that  is  "  out  of  the  question  "  is  put 
forward  as  unquestionable  for  the  benefit  of  "  those  who  are 
unacquainted  with  Hebrew  or  who  lack  the  time  or  oppor- 
tunity to  study  commentaries "  (including  presumably  Dr. 
Driver's  own  commentary  on  Exodus).  It  will  be  seen  that 
when  a  writer  of  Dr.  Driver's  standing  is  reduced  to  arguing 
(infra,  pp.  150  f.)  that  he  does  not  believe  the  only  explana- 
tions he  puts  before  his  readers,  and  subsequently  to  com- 
mending views  that  he  regards  as  "  out  of  the  question,"  the 
end  is  not  far  off. 

In  other  directions  a  sounder  view  of  the  history  of  Israel 
is  undoubtedly  making  progress.  A  perusal  of  the  last  vol- 
ume published  by  Professor  Eerdmans  (Das  Buch  Leviticus) 
reveals  the  gratifying  fact  that  he  has  independently  reached 
many  of  the  conclusions  set  out  in   No.   20,   and   it  may  be 


Preface  xiii 

hoped  that  further  study  will  reduce  the  differences  between 
us.  Moreover,  a  new  tendency  to  give  a  hearing  to  the  views 
of  conservative  scholars  is  becoming  evident  in  many  quarters 
where  the  critical  theories  were  formerly  accepted  as  unques- 
tionable. It  is  now  certain  that  the  documentary  and  evolu- 
tionary theories  are  mortally  wounded. 

I  cannot  close  this  preface  without  a  word  of  gratitude  for 
the  services  rendered  to  the  conservative  case  by  Dr.  G.  Fred- 
erick Wright,  to  whom  this  book  is  dedicated.  But  for  his 
courage  and  steadfastness  of  purpose  against  all  odds  through- 
out many  years  when  the  outlook  must  have  seemed  nearly 
hopeless,  conservatism  would  not  now  occupy  its  present  fa- 
vorable position. 

Harold  M.  Wiener. 
9  Or.D  Square, 

Lincoln's  Inn,  W.  C. 

11  September  1912. 


CONTENTS 


Pbeface 


I.     Some  Aspects  of  the   Conservative  Task   in   Penta- 

TEUCHAL    CBITICISM     (I)  1 

II.     Textual   Criticism,    History,   and   Faith  13 

III.  The  Dating  of  Genesis  xxii.  19 

IV.  The  Age  of  Isaac  22 

V.     The  Post-Mosaica  of  Genesis  2G 

VI.    The   Answer   of   Textual  Criticism    to   the   Higher 

Criticism  of  the  Story  of  Joseph   (I)  29 

VII.     The   Answer  of   Textual   Criticism   to   the   Higher 

Criticism  of  the  Story  of  Joseph    (II)  39 

VIII.     The  Swansong  of  the  Wellhausen   School  49 

IX.    The   Higher   Critical   Quandary    (I)  :    A   Correspon- 
dence with  Drs.  Briggs  and  Driver  90 

X.     The  Higher  Critical  Quandary    (II)  :   A  Correspon- 
dence with  Dr.  Gordon  114 

XI.     Some  Aspects  of  the   Conservative  Task  in   Penta- 

TEUCHAL  Criticism    (II)  124 

XII.     Dr.  Driver  on  Exodus  143 

XIII.  The  Negeb  in  Exodus  152 

XIV.  The   "  King  "   of  Deuteronomy  xvii.   14-20  157 

XV.     Deuteronomy    xxxiii.    4 :    "  Moses    commanded    us    a 

law  "  169 

XVI.    The    Laws    of    Deuteronomy    and    the    Arguments 

from   Silence  170 

XVII.     Deuteronomy  and  the  Argument  from   Style  195 

XVIII.     The  Altar  of  Joshua  xxii  225 

XIX.     The  "  Priests  "  of  Exodus  xix  230 


xvi  Pentateuchal  Studies 

PAGE 

XX.     Peiests  and  Levites  :  The  Fourth  Chapter  of  Well- 

hausen's   Prolegomena  281 

Priests  and  Levites  in  tlie  Priestly  Code            233 

Priests  and  Levites  in  ttie   Otlier   Portions  of 

the  Pentateucli  248 

Priests  and  Levites  from   Moses  to  Malaclii       257 

Ezekiel  277 

Conclusion  281 

XXI.     The  High   Priest  287 

XXIL     The   Fifth    Chapter   of   Wellhausen's   Prolegomena  290 

XXIII.     The  Legislations  of  Israel  and  Babylonia  306 

Index     I.    (Texts)  339 

Index  II.    (Subjects)  347 


Pentateuchal   Studies 


SOME  ASPECTS  OF  THE  CONSERVATIVE  TASK  IN 
PENTATEUCHAL  CRITICISM  (I) 

[From  the  Bihliotlieca  Sacra,  January,  1911.] 

The  necessity  for  meeting  a  large  number  of  detailed 
arguments  in  the  course  of  the  great  critical  controversy  as 
to  the  origin  of  the  Pentateuch  cannot  be  held  to  afford  any 
justification  for  neglecting  to  take  some  general  view  of  the 
task  that  confronts  those  who  hold  conservative  opinions. 
Indeed,  reflection  shows  rather  that  the  efforts  which  have  to 
be  made  for  the  purpose  of  grappling  with  individual  diffi- 
culties must  never  be  dissevered  from  the  general  principles 
by  the  aid  of  which  alone  success  can  be  obtained:  and  the 
circumstance  that  many  conservatives  devote  their  labors  to 
processes  which  are  scarcely  likely  to  prove  more  profitable 
than  plowing  the  sands  tends  to  emphasize  the  desirability  of 
considering  the  lines  along  which  our  work  should  proceed. 

It  is  a  condition  precedent  of  all  conservative  work  that  the 
conservative  writer  should  know  the  higher  critical  case  a 
great  deal  better  than  any  critic  does.  That  may  sound 
paradoxical  and  difficult:  it  is  really  the  simplest  thing  in  the 
world.  For  the  conservative  must  know  not  merely  the 
strength  of  the  critical  case,  but  also  its  weaknesses ;  and  these 
appear  never  even  to  be  suspected  by  the  critics.  But  unless 
he  knows  the  critical  case  thoroughly,  knows  it  in  its  seem- 
ing strength,  he  will  never  be  able  to  detect  its  weaknesses. 


2  Pentateiichal  Studies 

He  must  be  perfectly  acquainted  with  the  arguments  he  is  to 
refute  if  he  is  to  have  any  chance  of  showing  others  exactly 
where  they  go  off  the  rails. 

Another  matter  to  be  borne  in  mind  is  that  a  style  of  apol- 
ogetics at  present  much  in  vogue  is  much  more  likely  to 
damage  our  position  than  to  improve  it.  I  refer  to  the  too 
frequent  efforts  to  disprove  the  higher  critical  case  by  citing 
against  one  another  the  divergent  opinions  of  different  writers. 
"  Here  is  a  problem :  Professor  A  says  the  solution  is  X,  Pro- 
fessor B  that  it  is  Y:  therefore  there  is  no  problem."  Stated 
in  this  way,  the  logic  is  a  trifle  weak:  but  unfortunately  it 
will  be  found  far  too  frequently  on  our  side.  No  doubt  in 
many  cases  something  that  presents  no  difficulties  has  been 
magnified  into  a  problem ;  but  in  others  there  is  a  genuine 
question  to  be  faced  and  answered,  and  in  such  cases  this 
style  of  apologetics  is  worse  than  useless.  The  apologist  may 
insist  as  he  will :  he  may  produce  the  most  plausible  of  argu- 
ments: but  the  first  time  the  student  is  confronted  with  the 
bed-rock  difficulty  in  the  text  the  conservative  arguments  will 
vanish  into  thin  air  and  the  solution  of  either  Professor  A  or 
Professor  B  will  make  a  fresh  convert.  The  true  method  is 
to  show  that  the  solution  of  the  problem  is  neither  X  nor  Y, 
but  Z :  and  then  there  is  a  probability  that  every  fresh  student 
who  has  to  consider  this  text  and  the  explanations  suggef.ted 
will  be  inclined  towards  the  conservative  case  —  finding  that 
here  at  any  rate  none  of  the  critical  theories  will  hold  water, 
while  conservatism  can  remove  the  difficulty.  The  truth  will 
ultimately  stand  by  its  own  inherent  strength  and  not  through 
the  divisions  of  its  opponents.  Our  task  is,  above  all  things, 
constructive. 

But  here  perhaps  somebody  may  interpose  with  two  objec- 
tions.    In  the  first  place,  it  may  be  said  that  it  is  notoriously 


Pcntateuchal  Criticism  3 

extremely  difficult  to  get  any  critic  to  read  conservative  work. 
That  is  unfortunately  true ;  but  there  are  two  answers.  There 
exists  a  large  body  of  men  who  are  not  professional  critics 
though  they  have  been  influenced  (and  in  some  cases  trained) 
by  those  who  are:  and  many  of  these  while  regarding  the 
critical  position  as  probably  correct  are  quite  willing  to  listen 
to  argument.  The  opinions  of  these  men  must  in  time  react 
on  the  critics  themselves.  The  second  answer  is,  that  even  in 
the  case  of  the  most  inveterate  critics  steady  persistence  is 
apt  in  the  long  run  to  have  its  usual  effect  and  to  compel  re- 
luctant attention.  For  these  reasons  the  conservatives  should 
not  allow  themselves  to  be  daunted,  but  should  work  away 
steadily  until  in  the  slow  but  inevitable  course  of  events  their 
arguments  win  recognition. 

Then  there  is  another  great  objection.  When  the  critical 
case  has  been  demolished,  the  critics  will  still  continue  to  be- 
lieve and  teach  it.  This  may  sound  far-fetched :  actual  exper- 
ience of  the  critics  has,  however,  convinced  me  that  it  is  only 
too  true. 

'A  man  couvinced  against  bis  will 
Is  of  the  same  opinion  still.' 

In  such  cases  the  critics  should,  where  possible,  be  induced 
to  publish  their  revised  views  in  the  full  confidence  that  these 
will  have  on  their  readers  the  effect  that  conservatives  desire. 
An  eminent  critic  on  receivmg  the  article  in  the  Bibliotheca 
Sacra  for  January,  190!;»,i  wrote  to  me,  saying  in  eft'ect  that 
he  was  too  prejudiced  to  be  affected  in  his  views  by  the  text- 
ual uncertainty  of  the  Divine  appellations  in  Genesis.  Nothing 
would  serve  our  purpose  better  than  that  he  should  publish 
something  on  those  lines  and  expound  it  carefully  to  his 
pupils.  "  This  theory  was  framed  to  account  for  certain 
*  Essays  In   Pentateuchal   Criticism,   pp.   4-56. 


4  Pentatcuchal  Studies 

facts:  those  facts  are  now  displaced:  but,  as  I  am  prejudiced, 
I  say  that  the  theory  is  true  in  spite  of  all  facts  to  the  con- 
trary." ^  I  myself  have  had  too  much  experience  of  correspond- 
ing with  hig-her  critics,  and  have  found  them  too  unable  to 
answer  my  points,  to  have  any  doubt  of  the  unsoundness  of 
their  position ;  and,  that  being  so,  the  work  of  getting  our  ar- 
guments grasped  may  take  time,  but  must  ultimately  succeed. 
A  minor  difficulty  lies  in  the  tendency  of  the  critics  to  regard 
every  point  made  by  the  conservatives  as  a  "  detail."  The 
higher  critical  case  is  of  course  made  up  of  a  mass  of  details ; 
but,  of  these,  some  (as,  for  instance,  Astruc's  clue,  and  the 
blunders  made  by  Wellhausen  as  the  result  of  his  inability  to 
discriminate  between  a  house  and  an  altar)  possess  greater 
importance  than  others.  It  is  amusing  to  see  how  in  the  eyes 
of  higher  critics  on  the  defensive,  that  which  but  yesterday 
was  a  cardinal  point  in  their  case  suddenly  shrinks  to  a  detail. 
But  what  is  less  amusing  is  the  obvious  reluctance  to  consider 
the  ramifications  of  the  "  detail,"  and  frankly  to  jettison  ar- 
guments and  hypotheses  that  have  become  untenable.  We 
have  still  to  discover  the  higher  critic  who,  on  finding  reason 
to  believe  that  his  opponents  have  scored  a  point,  will  have 
the  cciurage  to  look  into  the  matter  in  all  its  bearings  and  then 
tell  the  public :  "  Such  and  such  a  position  has  become  unten- 
able, and  we  are  shown  to  have  been  wrong  on  this  point :  our 
theory  therefore  requires  such  and  such  modifications."  In 
dealing  with  this  characteristic,  as  with  others,  the  conserva- 
tives have  no  choice  but  to  continue  working  away  persist- 
ently until  they  wear  down  the  critical  prejudices. 

*  Since  the  above  was  written,  Professor  Steuernagel  has  found 
himself  compelled  to  argue  that  the  documentary  theory  would  stand, 
even  if  all  the  discrepancies  in  the  Pentateuch  failed  (Theologische 
Literaturzeitung,  October  15,  1910).  It  is  greatly  to  our  advantage 
that  the  critics  should  be  driven  into  such  positions. 


Pcutatciichal  Criticism  5 

Subject  to  these  remarks,  the  critical  arguments  mostly  fall 
under  a  few  heads  for  conservative  purposes,  and  I  propose 
shortly  to  examine  some  of  these. 

1.  First,  then,  it  will  be  found  that  the  critics  habitually 
use  a  large  number  of  arguments  which  when  investigated  do 
nothing  whatever  to  support  their  case  and  are  at  least  equally 
compatible  with  the  conservative  position.  I  have  often  given 
examples  of  this.  Take,  for  instance,  the  argument  from  style 
as  applied  to  the  legislation.  Owing  to  the  narrowness  of 
their  reading,  the  critics  do  not  know  that,  in  antiquity,  style 
varied  according  to  subject-matter.^  I  once  discussed  this 
matter  with  an  eminent  critic,  pointing  out  to  him  that  in 
classical  studies  men  had  come  to  recognize  how  different  the 
use  of  style  was  in  the  ancient  world  to  that  in  the  modern. 
He  said:  "  We  are  much  further  advanced  than  the  classical 
philologists."  The  day  before  he  had  told  me  that  he  read 
nothing  outside  his  own  subject!  Certainly  that  must  have 
made  it  much  easier  for  him  to  reach  this  notable  conclusion. 

Many  of  the  arguments  urged  as  to  the  early  chapters  of 
Genesis  fall  in  this  category.  As  I  have  frequently  pointed 
out,  there  are  certainly  passages  that  are  much  older  than  the 
time  of  Moses.  Genesis  x.  19,  with  its  reference  to  Sodom 
and  Gomorrah  and  Admah  and  Zeboiim  as  still  existing,  is  a 
familiar  instance  which  anybody  can  appreciate  without  tech- 
nical training.  (In  fact  I  may  remark  in  passing,  that  I  often 
find  it  useful  to  begin  with  this  point  when  discussing  any  of 
these  matters  with  a  partisan  of  the  higher  critics,  just  be- 
cause it  is  so  easily  and  rapidly  apprehended.)  But  if  once 
pre-Mosaic  sources  be  admitted  in  Genesis,  very  many  of  the 
higher  critical  arguments  becom.e  valueless,  for  large  sections 
of  the  data  may  be  most  naturally  explained  by  this  hypothe- 
1  See  infra,  No.  17,  "Deuteronomy  and  the  Argument  from  Style." 


6  Pentateiichal  Studies 

sis.  If  a  critic  seeks  to  reply  that  the  phenomena  that  charac- 
terize the  supposed  sources  of  Genesis  continue  thereafter,  it 
is  easy  to  rejoin  by  pointing-  out  to  him  that  as  the  author  of 
X.  19  could  not  have  written  an  account  of,  say,  the  Mosaic 
age,  there  must  be  something-  very  wrong  indeed  with  the 
critical  methods  which  led  them  to  assign  this  to  a  late  stratum 
of  J,  i.e.  to  a  hypothetical  writer  who  is  supposed  to  have 
flourished  at  least  a  thousand  years  after  the  latest  date  at 
which  this  passage  could  have  been  composed. 

2.  A  second  great  division  of  the  critical  arguments  is  fur- 
nished by  difficulties  that  depend  on  the  state  of  the  text.  The 
Pentateuch  is  a  book  that  has  been  handed  down  to  us 
through  a  great  number  of  centuries.  Whatever  care  may 
have  been  exercised  in  the  process,  it  is  inevitable  that  errors 
should  have  crept  into  the  text,  for  the  transmission  has  been 
accomplished  by  human  means,  and  no  man  is  infallible.  Now 
we  in  fact  know  from  ancient  Versions  and  other  sources 
that  the  received  Hebrew  Bible  represents  only  one  recension 
of  the  original ;  and  in  many  places  that  recension  is  for  one 
reason  or  another  clearly  wrong.  There  are  passages  that 
violate  the  ordinary  rules  of  grammar,  passages  from  which 
no  sense  can  be  extracted,  passages  that  can  indeed  be  trans- 
lated and  will  give  some  sense  from  which  however  no  satis- 
factory meaning  can  be  elicited.^  In  such  cases  we  may  be 
sure  the  text  has  suffered.  But  there  are  instances  in  which 
what  are  obviously  mere  textual  corruptions  have  been  ex- 
ploited by  the  higher  critics  for  the  purposes  of  their  theory. 
In  such  cases  it  is  the  duty  of  conservatives  to  devote  them- 
selves to  textual  criticism  and  show  on  what  the  critical  argu- 
ments are  really  founded.     It  is  a  great  pity  that  this  form  of 

'  E.g.  the  statement  that  Saul  was  one  year  old  when  he  began 
to  reign. 


Pentateuchal  Criticism  7 

criticism  has  been  so  largely  neglected.  An  illustration  of  this 
that  seems  to  me  to  be  at  once  significant  and  unfortunate  is 
the  fact  that  originally  no  volume  on  the  Text  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment appears  to  have  been  thought  necessary  to  the  complete- 
ness of  Messrs.  T.  and  T.  Clark's  International  Theological 
Library.  Articles  in  Bible  dictionaries  and  sections  in  the  in- 
troductions to  special  commentaries  form  very  insufficient 
substitutes  for  a  really  comprehensive  treatise  on  this  import- 
ant subject,  and  it  is  therefore  gTatifying  to  note  that  it  is 
now  intended  to  add  such  a  volume  to  the  series. 

3.  A  third  great  division  of  critical  difficulties  is  consti- 
tuted by  certain  matters  which  require  for  their  elucidation 
expert  knowledge  that  the  critics  lack.  I  have  repeatedly 
illustrated  this  and  do  not  propose  to  labor  the  point  now. 
Here  it  must  be  the  duty  of  conservatives  to  endeavor  to  raise 
critical  knowledge  to  a  higher  level. 

4.  Closely  connected  with  this  last  division  is  another  — 
the  difficulties  that  are  due  to  our  insufficient  knowledge  of  the 
history  of  the  Mosaic  and  preceding  ages.  These  difficulties 
are  being  reduced  by  archeology.  But  probably  the  most 
striking  illustrations  of  the  benefits  conferred  by  this  science 
are  to  be  found  in  the  eflfect  that  it  is  having  on  various  hare- 
brained theories.  It  must  be  remembered  that  there  have 
been  important  instances  of  breaches  with  the  established 
Wellhausen  school  of  late  years.  One  example  is  provided 
by  Kuenen's  successor,  Eerdmans,  who  is  under  the  influence 
of  archaeological  material.  In  a  different  direction  the  same 
may  be  said  of  Professor  Bruno  Baentsch  and  those  who  are 
following  him.  Professor  Baentsch  came  to  the  conclusion, 
from  the  archaeological  material,  that  it  was  incorrect  to  argue 
for  a  late  date  for  Monotheism.  A  more  recent  German  higher 
critical  work  is  Dr.  A.  F.  Puukko's  "  Das  Deuteronomium." 


8  Pentateiichal  Studies 

His  verdict  is  as  follows :  "  I  am  decidedly  of  the  opinion  that 
the  old  Israelitish  tradition  which  ascribes  the  Decalogue  to 
Moses  is  credible,  and  does  not  stand  in  irreconcilable  contra- 
diction with  any  historical  facts"  (pp.  44  f.).  He  means  a 
simpler  form  of  the  Decalogue  than  that  in  the  text  of  Exo- 
dus, but  that  such  a  form  should  be  Mosaic  —  perhaps  even 
preserved  in  writing  —  is  a  view  that  he  has  adopted  as  the 
result  of  archaeological  evidence.  Thus  he  writes,  in  a  note 
on  page  43 :  "  After  the  discovery  of  the  stele  of  the  Code  of 
Hammurabi  and  the  Tel-el-Amarna  finds  this  hypothesis  con- 
tains nothing  unreasonable."  The  same  influence  showed  it- 
self in  the  article  contributed  by  Dr.  C.  F.  Burney  to  the 
Journal  of  Theological  Studies  for  1908.  Professor  Sellin, 
in  his  new  "  Introduction  to  the  Old  Testament,"  advances 
further  along  the  conservative  path.  It  is  true  that  the 
theories  that  are  now  being  abandoned  never  had  the  slight- 
est probative  force  behind  them :  but  they  were  the  fashion 
with  a  certain  school  of  writers,  and  it  is  therefore  well  that 
the  successors  of  these  writers  should  have  to  abandon  them 
explicitly.  So  too  the  discovery  of  early  tablets  showing  that 
Abraham  was  in  fact  a  personal  name  is  not  grateful  to  those 
who  wish  to  see  in  him  a  moon  god. 

In  this  connection  the  following  note  (which  will  be  found 
on  p.  392  of  the  sixth  German  edition  of  Wellhausen's  Pro- 
legomena) may  cause  some  amusement:  "I  believe  that  the 
present  legislation  in  Exod.  xxi.  xxii.  is  at  bottom  Canaanit- 
ish,  i.e.  pre-Israelite.  The  laws  of  Hammurabi  are  better  re- 
dacted, yet  as  far  from  being  artificial  as  those  of  Exodus 
xxi.  f. ;  they  may  also  be  of  great  antiquity.  But  it  does  not 
follow  from  the  fact  that  they  are  attributed  to  Hammurabi 
that  they  come  from  him.  In  view  of  experiences  elsewhere 
this  conclusion  of  the  Assyriologists  is  not  actually  necessary. 


Pentateuchal  Criticism  9 

A  priori  the  converse  is  more  probable."  Comment  would 
spoil  the  pure  joy  of  this  note. 

5.  A  fifth  great  head  of  points  that  press  the  critics  re- 
quires very  different  treatment  —  I  refer  to  the  difficulties 
that  are  purely  imaginary. 

Nothing  is  commoner  than  for  a  higher  critic  to  misunder- 
stand a  text  or  lay  down  some  preposterous  canon  to  whicJ> 
history  or  literature  is  expected  to  conform,  and  then  to  erect 
a  theory  on  such  a  basis.  Sensible  men  rarely  attach  much 
importance  to  these  sections- of  the  higher  critical  case,  and 
we  need  not  linger  on  the  subject,  because  Professor  Toy,  one 
of  the  most  eminent  of  the  American  critics,  has  recently 
used  very  clear  language  in  this  connection.  He  writes  quite 
frankly :  "  I  do  not  pretend  to  defend  all  the  arguments  and 
conclusions  of  recent  works  on  the  Pentateuch.  They  some- 
times disagree  among  themselves,  and  sometimes  press  analysis 
too  far  and  make  difficulties  where  there  are  none."  ^ 

It  will,  I  think,  be  found  that  many  of  the  critical  argu- 
ments can  be  grouped  under  one  or  other  of  the  foregoing 
heads.  To  my  mind  the  work  of  disposing  of  them  consti- 
tutes by  far  the  more  important  department  of  the  conserva- 
tive task.  The  great  fundamental  improbabilities  —  religious, 
moral,  historical,  literary  —  of  the  higher  critical  case  are  so 
grave  and  so  obvious  that  the  majority  of  students  who  are 
not  rationalists  will  necessarily  incline  towards  conservatism 
if  it  be  made  at  all  possible  for  them,  and  that  depends  mainly 
on  the  line  we  take  towards  the  arguments  on  which  the 
critics  rely. 

At  the  same  time  it  must  be  remembered  that  conservatism 
is  in  a  position  to  put  forward  a  positive  constructive  case  of 
^Tlie  Christian  Register,  April  28,  1910. 


10  Pentatenchal  Studies 

its  own.  There  are  passages  which  to  any  unbiased  mind 
prove  date  with  sufficient  certainty.  In  this  connection  the 
following  admissions  are  of  interest :  "  It  will  thus  be  seen 
that  we  have  here  a  very  vivid  and  true  picture  of  Eg>'ptian 
life;  and,  in  particular,  of  the  life  of  the  lower  orders  "  (Gray, 
Numbers,  p.  104,  on  Num.  xi.  5)  ;  "  The  description  is  drawn 
from  life,  corresponding  accurately  to  modern  observation  in 
its  various  details  —  the  great  multitude  of  the  birds,  their 
use  of  wind  in  their  migration,  the  lowness  of  their  flight,  the 
ease  with  which  when  weary  they  are  netted  "  {op.  cit.,  p.  117, 
of  the  quails.  Num.  xi.  31-33). 

Such  traits  cannot  be  without  their  weight  for  any  esti- 
mate of  authorship  and  date. 

Or  take  the  priestly  legislation.  Omitting  technical  points, 
its  date  is  still  clearly  written  on  its  face.  After  the  exile  the 
Ark  was  no  longer  in  existence:  yet  this  legislation  gives 
careful  directions  for  its  construction.  That  may  seem  some- 
what belated,  though  the  critics  think  nothing  of  it.  But  the 
mere  construction  is  a  bagatelle.  Our  legislator  thinks  it 
necessary  to  provide  for  the  suitable  housing  of  this  Ark  at 
a  period  many  centuries  before  his  time.  Accordingly  he 
forges  most  elaborate  Divine  ordinances  for  the  construction 
of  a  tabernacle  —  again  to  meet  the  needs  of  an  epoch  that 
had  long  since  elapsed.  Next  he  sets  apart  a  whole  tribe  to 
transport  the  national  Ark  and  Sanctuary  and  gives  most 
minute  instructions  as  to  the  details  of  their  conveyance. 
That,  of  course,  is  the  most  striking  illustration  in  point  of 
length.  It  is  by  no  means  the  only  one.  Laws  relating  to 
booty  and  conquests  (Num.  xxxi.,  xxxiii.)  are  singularly  out 
of  place  in  the  circumstances  of  the  exilic  and  Ezran  periods. 
I  have  repeatedly  pointed  to  the  irreconcilable  conflict  between 
Num.  xxxi.  18,  permitting  unions  with  Midianitish  women. 


Pentateuchal  Criticism  11 

and  the  attitude  of  the  religious  leaders  at  this  epoch.  The 
system  of  tribes  with  separate  tribal  lots  was  as  dead  as  the 
dodo,  yet  the  injury  that  might  accrue  to  them  from  the  laws 
of  inheritance  forms  the  subject  of  anxious  consideration  and 
legislation  (Num.  xxxvi.).  Of  those  laws  of  inheritance 
themselves  I  have  written  in  "  Studies  in  Biblical  Law,"  and 
elsewhere.^ 

Another  branch  of  the  conservative  argument  will  be  pro- 
vided by  the  historical  evolution  that  can  be  traced  in  the  laws 
when  the  conservative  dating  is  retained.  That  evolution  is 
in  accordance  with  the  course  of  history  observed  in  other 
societies.  In  such  subjects  as  family,  inheritance,  homicide, 
covenant  customs,  theft,  our  information  enables  us  to  trace 
growth  and  change  with  more  or  less  fullness.^ 

Increased  attention  must  be  given  to  the  structure  of  the 
Pentateuch  and  the  proofs  of  its  substantial  unity.  It  is  almost 
fashionable  now  even  for  critics  to  recognize  a  measure  of 
unity  in  Genesis.  It  will  soon  be  possible  to  force  them  to 
admit  the  essential  unity  of  the  great  bulk  of  Deuteronomy. 
Then  will  follow  the  testimony  of  Deuteronomy  to  certain 
portions  of  the  earlier  books  and  the  evidences  of  unity  in  at 
any  rate  the  bulk  of  "  P's  "  narrative  and  the  whole  of  the 
legislation.  Many  important  consequences  will  flow  from  the 
recognition  of  the  fact  that  in  the  Pentateuchal  legislation  we 
have  the  laws  of  Moses,  subject  only  to  textual  criticism,  in 
the  language  of  Moses. 

*  Other  arguments  of  the  same  kind  will  be  found  in  Essays  in 
Pentateuchal  Criticism,  The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch,  and  infra, 
No.  20,  "  Priests  and  Levites " ;  also  in  Dr.  Orr's  Problem  of  the 
Old  Testament. 

^  See  the  articles  on  "  Law  in  Old  Testament,"  "  Family  and  In- 
heritance," "  Crimes."  "  Wrongs  and  Punishments,"  "  Homicide," 
"  Witness,"  in  Murray's  Illustrated  Bible  Dictionary,  and  the  lit- 
erature there  referred  to. 


12  Pentateiichal  Studies 

Many  other  important  lines  of  argument  will  be  found  in 
Dr.  Orr  s  "  Problem  of  the  Old  Testament."  This  article  is 
purposely  limited  to  a  few  aspects  of  the  subject,  for  a  treatise 
might  be  written  in  the  attempt  to  deal  with  it  exhaustively. 
Yet  it  has  seemed  in  place  to  sketch  roughly  some  of  the  lines 
on  which  we  must  work,  in  the  hope  that  even  such  a  hasty 
sketch  might  prove  conducive  to  clear  thinking  on  some  points 
of  cardinal  importance. 


II 

TEXTUAL  CRITICISM,  HISTORY.  AND  FAITH 

[From   the  Bihliotheca  Sacra,  April,   1910.] 

I  HAVE  been  asked  to  write  a  note  on  the  bearing  of  the 
textual  criticism  of  the  Pentateuch  on  History  and  Faith. 
The  immediate  occasion  for  the  request  was  the  pubHcation  of 
a  footnote  in  the  Journal  of  Biblical  Literature;  and,  as  the 
genesis  of  that  footnote  seems  likely  to  be  typical  of  the  origin 
of  other  publications,  it  is  worth  while  to  examine  into  it.  It 
appears,  from  the  record  of  the  Proceedings  of  the  Society  of 
Biblical  Literature  and  Exegesis  for  December,  1908,  that  on 
Thursday,  December  31,  in  that  year  —  importance  attaches 
to  the  date  —  Professor  George  A.  Barton  read  a  paper  en- 
titled "Abraham  and  Archseology."  This  was  written  in  the 
usual  strain  of  the  VVellhausen  critics,  with  many  references 
to  J^  and  J2,  E  and  P.  The  paper  contains  no  internal  evi- 
dence that  its  author  had  ever  read  or  considered  the  publica- 
tions of  Dahse  and  Eerdmans,  and  proceeds  on  the  assumption 
that  all  is  for  the  best  with  the  best  of  all  possible  critical  the- 
ories. Unfortunately  the  Bibliotheca  Sacra  for  the  very 
next  month  (January,  1909)  contained  my  article  on  "the 
clue  to  the  documents  "  to  which  the  Wellhausenites  have  so 
far  been  unable  to  offer  any  reply,  and  the  professor  found  his 
position  changed.  On  the  one  hand  his  paper  —  as  well  as  his 
earlier  publications  —  committed  him  irretrievably  to  this  hap- 
less theory ;  on  the  other,  apparently  neither  he  nor  any  mem- 
ber of  his  school  had  any  inclination  to  tackle  my  facts  and 
arguments.     Public  demonstration  of  this  has  been  afforded 

by  the  series  of  notes  that  appeared  in  the  Expository  Times 
13 


14  Pentateuchal  Studies 

for  May,  July,  and  September,  1909,  under  the  title  "  The 
Name  of  God  in  Genesis."  Anybody  who  will  be  at  the  pains 
of  reading  those  notes  carefully  and  consecutively  will  see  that 
the  Wellhausen  critics  cannot  possibly  reply  to  the  communica- 
tions of  Professor  Schlogl  and  myself,  and  that  their  represen- 
tative. Dr.  Skinner,  only  succeeded  in  making  some  show  of  a 
case  in  the  May  number  by  putting  forward  assertions  that  he 
has  not  substantiated  under  cross-examination.  It  is  therefore 
an  easy  task  to  realize  and  pity  the  plight  in  which  Professor 
Barton  found  himself,  though  it  is  less  easy  to  commend  the 
course  he  adopted.  The  paper  was  printed  in  the  ordinary 
way  in  the  Journal  of  Biblical  Literature  for  1909,  and  on 
page  166  Professor  Barton  added  the  following  footnote  to  a 
phrase  in  the  text  about  "  the  so-called  warfare  between  ar- 
chaeology and  criticism  "  : — 

"  One  of  the  curious  psychological  phases  of  this  artificial  war- 
fare is  manifested  in  an  article  by  Wiener  on  '  Pentateuchal  Criti- 
cism '  in  the  Bibliotheca  Sacra  for  January,  1909.  This  writer 
argues  in  substance  that  the  critical  analysis  rests  on  an  insecure 
basis,  because  our  sources  of  knowledge  for  the  text  are  so  late  and 
imperfect  that  no  certain  inferences  can  be  drawn  from  its  state* 
aaents.  This  argument  is  apparently  published  as  a  defense  of 
faith!" 

Professor  Barton  is  mistaken.  The  article  was  not  pub- 
lished as  a  defense  of  faith.  Jt  was  published  for  the  advance- 
ment of  truth  by  men  who  believe  that  the  impartial  and 
conscientious  search  for  truth  conducted  with  adequate  equip- 
ment and  judgment  can  never  do  any  harm  to  Faith.  But  the 
points  made  or  implied  in  the  note  are  obviously  two:  (1) 
that  no  certain  inferences  can  be  drawn  from  the  statements 
of  the  biblical  text;  and  (2)  that  the  writer's  position  is  an- 
tagonistic to  faith.  It  is  proposed  shortly  to  deal  with  these 
two  matters. 


Textual  Criticism,  History,  and  Faith  15 

How  far  does  textual  criticism  affect  the  history?  The 
answer  is,  Scarcely  at  all.  In  ninety-nine  cases  out  of  a  hun- 
dred it  makes  no  difference  whatever  to  the  import  of  a  nar- 
rative, whether  AB  be  referred  to  as  A  or  B  or  AB.  In  a 
footnote  on  page  156  of  the  impugned  article,  I  was  careful  to 
write:  "It  may  also  be  added  that  the  difficulty  of  forming 
an  opinion  is  due  to  the  supreme  unimportance  of  the  subject. 
The  difference  between  the  two  appellations  so  seldom  makes 
any  appreciable  difference  to  the  text  that  all  criteria  fail." 
That  really  disposes  of  Professor  Barton's  point,  for  his  ref- 
erence was  solely  to  this  one  article.  Nevertheless,  it  is  better 
to  extend  the  inquiry,  and  deal  more  generally  with  the  effects 
of  textual  criticism  on  history.  That  the  removal  of  glosses 
cannot  have  any  important  effect  on  the  narrative  is  self- 
evident.  Another  department  of  textual  criticism  consists  of 
transpositions;  and,  as  the  only  result  of  these  is  to  give  us 
the  same  narrative  in  a  different  order,  it  is  clear  that  the  his- 
torical effects  of  this  must  also  be  very  limited.  The  most 
important  modification  I  have  ever  suggested  was  the  rear- 
rangement of  the  text  of  the  concluding  chapters  of  Numbers ; 
and,  as  one  of  the  results  of  that  was  to  bring  a  hitherto 
chaotic  collection  of  episodes  into  strict  accordance  with  Deu- 
teronomy, the  most  that  can  be  said  against  me  is  that  I  have 
substituted  one  comprehensible  account  of  certain  important 
transactions  of  the  Mosaic  Age  for  two  accounts,  one  of  which 
was  intelligible  and  natural,  while  the  other  was  not.  Other 
less  important  transpositions  have  a  very  slight  bearing  on  our 
conception  of  history.  For  example,  the  exact  date  at  which 
Moses  began  to  take  a  tent  outside  the  camp  or  at  which  the 
priestly  blessing  was  commanded  does  not  really  modify  his- 
tory in  any  substantial  degree.  The  only  other  department  of 
textual  criticism  that  affects  the  narrative  is  the  correction  of 


16  Pentatciichal  Studies 

corrupt  words.  Yet  the  change  of  one  or  more  letters  here  and 
there  cannot  really  alter  any  important  feature  of  a  lengthy 
relation.  We  may  come  to  the  conclusion  that  a  specified 
event  occurred  in  the  first  month  instead  of  the  fifth,  or  that 
on  a  given  occasion  certain  persons  who  stood  in  a  particular 
place  were  elders  and  not  priests,  or  that  some  transactions 
took  place  in  a  prison  and  not  in  the  house  of  a  captain  of  the 
guard ;  but  there  the  changes  end,  and  it  cannot  be  contended 
that  alterations  of  this  kind  modify  our  conception  of  the 
course  of  history  in  any  essential  respect. 

So  much  for  the  part  of  the  charge  that  relates  to  the  narra- 
tive. Now  for  the  point  as  to  Faith.  The  present  writer  is  a 
Jew,  and  therefore  it  is  natural  for  him  to  consider  in  the  first 
instance  the  possible  effects  on  Judaism.  It  appears  to  him 
that  there  are  two  overwhelming  answers  to  the  suggestion 
that  textual  criticism  as  practised  by  him  could  in  any  wise 
damage  Faith.  The  first  is  that  all  the  dissentient  MSS.  and 
nearly  all  the  Versions  are  the  work  of  strictly  orthodox  Jews. 
The  LXX  was  a  Jewish  translation  made  for  the  use  of  the 
Greek-speaking  Jews  of  Egypt.  The  Syriac  is  supposed  to 
have  been  another  Jewish  translation.  Aquila  was  a  Jew  of 
the  most  strictly  orthodox  type  —  probably  a  disciple  of  Rabbi 
Akiba's.  The  Targums  are  Jewish  renderings  made  for  official 
use  in  the  Synagogue.  Other  variants  are  supplied  by  the 
Talmud  and  old  Jewish  commentaries  —  indeed,  by  the  foun- 
tain-heads of  Jewish  orthodoxy.  I  see  no  reason  to  believe 
either  that  the  Jews  of  to-day  are  much  better  than  their  pred- 
ecessors or  that  the  Bibles  of  the  latter  could  possibly  prejudice 
our  faith.  The  second  reason  is  even  more  complete.  The 
task  of  textual  criticism  is  to  recover  a  more  accurate  account 
of  the  sayings  and  doings  of  Moses  than  is  contained  in  the 
Massoretic  text.    The  suggestion,  therefore,  can  only  be  that 


Textual  Criticism,  History,  and  Faith  17 

a  more  correct  version  of  the  writings  of  Moses  could  be  in- 
jurious to  Judaism.  Does  the  professor  really  think  that  such 
a  bogey  could  frighten  any  educated  Jew  ? 

But  it  may  be  said  that  the  Faith  that  is  to  sustain  injury  at 
the  present  writer's  hands  is  the,  Christian  Faith.  It  would  be 
an  impertinence  for  one  who  does  not  profess  that  Faith  to 
affect  to  discuss  what  is  or  is  not  destructive  of  it.  That  task 
can  be  accomplished  satisfactorily  only  by  Christian  divines. 
Yet  T  may  be  allowed  to  do  something  to  adjust  the  issues  for 
the  latter.  First,  it  would  seem  that  they  would  have  to  con- 
sider the  point  I  have  just  raised  in  the  case  of  Judaism  —  the 
question  whether  the  ipsissima  verba  of  Moses  could  be  de- 
structive of  Faith.  But,  secondly,  they  will  have  to  consider 
whether  the  New  Testament  is  subversive  of  Christianity,  for 
it  is  well  known  that  the  New  Testament  writers  often  quote 
the  Old  Testament  in  the  Septuagint  and  not  from  the  Hebrew 
text.  Thirdly,  the  question  will  arise  whether  those  sections  of 
the  Christian  church  which  make  official  use  of  the  LXX  are 
destroying  faith.  Fourthly,  it  will  be  necessary  to  ask  whether 
the  whole  of  the  Roman  Catholic  Church  who  use  the  Vul- 
gate as  their  Bible  are  lacking  in  faith.  If  and  when  all  these 
questions  have  been  answered  in  a  sense  hostile  to  the  conten- 
tions of  the  present  writer,  they  will  doubtless  proceed  to  ex- 
amine the  positions  of  Professor  Barton  and  other  like-minded 
defenders  of  Faith.  Let  us  just  take  an  instance  of  what  these 
are.  The  following  passage  is  from  Mark  xii.  26,  27 :  "And 
as  touching  the  dead,  that  they  rise:  have  ye  not  read  in  the 
book  of  Moses,  how  in  the  bush  God  spake  unto  him,  saying, 
I  am  the  God  of  Abraham,  and  the  God  of  Isaac,  and  the  God 
of  Jacob  ?  He  is  not  the  God  of  the  dead,  but  the  God  of  the 
living:  ye  therefore  do  greatly  err."  What  has  the  "  reverent 
criticism"  of  our  "defenders"  to  say  to  this  passage?     The 


18  Pcntateuchal  Studies 

book  of  Moses  was  not  in  fact  the  book  of  Moses.  God  never 
spoke  to  him  in  the  bush,  or  if  He  did  He  certainly  never  spoke 
the  words  here  cited,  which  are  the  composition  of  somebody 
who  Hved  centuries  later.  As  to  Abraham  —  whose  God  these 
words  claim  Him  to  be  —  he  probably  was  not  a  person  at  all. 
Here  I  may  quote  from  Professor  Barton's  article: — 

"  .  .  .  .  These  facts  do  not  prove  Abraham  a  moon-god;  absolute 
proof  that  a  character  is  mythical  is  even  more  difficult  than  to 
prove  it  historical.  We  cannot,  however,  wonder  that,  in  the  absence 
of  proof  from  contemporary  sources  that  Abraham  was  a  person, 
such  facts  had  great  weight.  The  discovery  from  an  extra-Biblical 
source  that  Abraham  was  in  Babylonia  the  name  of  a  person,  even 
though  that  person  cannot  be  identified  with  the  Patriarch,  breaks 
in  a  slight  degree  thougli  it  by  no  means  nullified,  the  weight  of 
these  considerations." 

■"  One  would,  of  course,  prefer  to  believe  that  Abraham  was  an 
historical  character,  but  some  of  the  sublimest  ideals  have  been  en- 
shrined in  story  and  parable,  as  well  as  in  historic  men,  and  the 
Ideal  is  as  real  and  as  useful  for  teaching  in  one  case  as  in  the 
other." 

Thus  the  critics  proceed  with  one  limb  of  the  text  after  an- 
other. This  is  believing  criticism:  this  is  what  entitles  them  to 
sneer  at  my  alleged  "  defense  of  faith  " ! 


Ill 

THE  DATING  OF  GENESIS  XXII 

[From   the  Bibliotheca  Sacra,  April,  1910.] 

One  of  the  oldest  critical  arguments  is  furnished  by  the 
proverb  in  Genesis  xxii.  which  appears  to  refer  to  the  Temple 
mountain.  If  so,  the  chapter  could  not  be  earlier  than  the  time 
of  Solomon.  This  rests  on  two  points  —  "  the  land  of  Mo- 
riah  "  in  verse  2,  and  the  wording  of  the  proverb  itself  in  verse 
14.  Textual  criticism  disposes  of  both  these  points.  The 
word  "  Moriah  "  is  notoriously  corrupt.  A  land  of  Moriah  is 
quite  unknown,  and  the  ancient  authorities  all  differ  from  the 
Massoretic  text.  The  Samaritan  has  nxiiDn,  the  LXX  rT}v 
vy^r]\'qv,  Aquila  rr^v  Kara^avrj,  Symmachus  t?}?  QTrra<jia<iy 
the  Vulgate  visionis.  These  variants  abundantly  attest  cor- 
ruption, but  offer  no  help  to  the  true  text.  The  Syriac,  how- 
ever, has  a  much  more  probable  reading,  "  the  land  of  the 
Amorite,"  and  this  seems  to  be  correct. 

The  proverb  itself  is  rendered  by  the  LXX  iv  tm  Spec  Kvpio^ 
Qi<f)6r],  which  may  be  translated,  "  In  the  Mount  the  Lord 
was  seen,"  though,  if  the  aorist  is  gnomic,  it  would  be  more 
correct  to  translate  "  is  seen."  Apart  from  the  tense,  which 
is  doubtful,  this  rendering  does  not  postulate  a  different  Heb- 
rew consonantal  text  from  the  Massoretic.  It  is  merely  a 
question  of  vowel-points. 

This  Septuagintal  reading  arrests  attention  for  two  reasons. 
We  may  be  sure  that,  however  we  may  interpret  it,  the  expres- 
sion "  the  Lord  was  seen  "  would  rightly  or  wrongly  be  re- 
garded as  an  anthropomorphism  by  many  readers.  It  is  well 
19 


20  Pcntatcnchal  Studies 

known  that  the  Septuagintal  translators  avoided  anthropomor- 
phisms. "A  dogmatic  interest,"  says  Dr.  Swete,  "  has  been 
detected  in  some  of  these  paraphrastic  renderings,  chiefly 
where  the  LXX  have  endeavoured  to  avoid  the  anthropomor- 
phisms of  the  original ;  examples  are  most  frequent  in  the  Pen- 
tateuch." ^  Can  it  be  supposed  that  translators  influenced  by 
a  bias  of  this  character  would  have  given  such  a  rendering  if 
they  had  not  been  impelled  by  the  pressure  of  a  well-settled 
tradition  as  to  the  meaning  and  pronunciation  of  the  Hebrew 
text? 

A  second  reason  lies  in  the  nature  of  the  proverb  "  In  the 
mountain  the  Lord  is  seen."  The  thought  recalls  the  well- 
known  passage  in  First  Kin^s :  "And  the  servants  of  the  king 
of  Syria  said  unto  him,  A  god  of  mountains  is  their  god; 
therefore  they  were  stronger  than  we:  but  let  us  fight  against 
them  in  the  plain,  and  surely  we  shall  be  stronger  than  they. 
....  Thus  saith  the  Lord,  Because  the  Syrians  have  said, 
A  god  of  mountains  is  the  Lord,  but  he  is  not  a  god  of  the 
valleys;  therefore  will  I  deliver  all  this  great  multitude 
into  thine  hand,  and  ye  shall  know  that  I  am  the  Lord" 
(1  Kings  XX.  23,  28).  Ls  it  so  certain  that  the  theory  of  the 
Syrians  was  not  originally  shared  by  many  an  Israelite  in  early 
days?  May  not  the  existence  of  some  such  belief  have  been 
responsible  for  the  view  of  the  Syrians?  If  the  Septuagintal 
reading  of  the  proverb  is  correct,  the  answer  can  scarcely  be 
doubtful. 

It  will  be  seen  that  on  this  view  the  Massoretic  pointing 
"  Mount  of  the  Lord,"  with  its  clear  reference  to  the  Temple 
Hill,  is  not  original.  It  will  have  been  produced  by  the  nat- 
ural tendency  to  avoid  a  seeming  anthropomorphism  and  the 
'An  Introduction  to  the  Old  Testament  In  Greek,  2d  edition 
(1902).  p.  327. 


The  Dating  of  Genesis  xxii  21 

failure  to  enter  into  the  ideas  of  a  past  age  and  realize  that 
there  may  have  been  a  time  when  many  an  excellent  man  re- 
garded Israel's  God  as  a  deity  who  manifested  his  power 
chiefly  in  the  mountains.  With  the  adoption  of  this  reading, 
all  reason  for  denying  this  chapter  to  Moses  disappears. 


IV 


THE  AGE  OF  ISAAC 

[From  tbe  BibliotJicca  Sacra,  October,  1911.] 

In  a  frequently  quoted  passage  Dr.  Driver  states  one  of 
the  most  effective  of  the  higher  critical  objections  to  the 
chronology  of  Genesis : — 

"We  all  remember  the  scene  (Gen.  xxvii.)  in  which  Isaac  in 
extreme  old  age  blesses  his  sons;  we  picture  him  as  lying  on  his 
death-bed.  Do  we,  however,  all  realize  that,  according  to  the 
chronology  of  the  Book  of  Genesis,  he  must  have  been  thus 
lying  on  bis  death-bed  for  eighty  years  (cp.  the  ages  of  Isaac  and 
his  sons,  xxv.  26;  xxvi.  34;  xxxv.  28)?  Yet  we  can  only  diminish 
this  period  by  extending  proportionately  the  interval  between 
Esau's  marrying  his  Hittite  wives  (Gen.  xxvi.  34),  and  Rebekah's 
suggestion  to  Isaac  to  send  Jacob  away,  lest  he  should  follow  bis 
brother's  example  (xxvii.  46),  which  from  the  nature  of  tbe  case 
will  not  admit  of  any  but  a  slight  extension.  Keil,  however,  does 
8o  extend  it,  reducing  the  period  of  Isaac's  final  illness  to  fortj'^- 
three  years,  and  is  conscious  of  no  incongruity  in  supposing  that 
Rebekah,  thirty-seven  years  after  Esau  had  taken  bis  Hittite  wives, 
should  express  her  fear  that  Jacob,  then  aged  seventy-seven,  will 
do  the  same!"* 

It  has  been  shown  in  former  articles  that  the  Septuagintal 
materials  often  suggest  that  chronological  difficulties  have 
arisen  from  erroneous  notes  being  incorporated  in  the  bibli- 
cal text.  We  are  too  familiar  with  marginal  notes  contain- 
ing well-meant  but  erroneous  chronological  data  in  modern 
editions  of  the  Bible  for  such  phenomena  to  create  any  sur- 
prise. In  an  age  before  printing,  the  contents  of  such  notes 
could  find  their  way  into  the  text  only  too  easily.  Hence, 
when  we  are  confronted  with  a   difficulty  such   as  this,   our 

'  Contemporary  Review,  vol.  Ivii.  p.  221. 
22 


The  Age  of  Isaac  23 

first  task  must  be  to  inquire  whether  any  important  variants 
have  been  preserved.  It  happens  that  this  is  indeed  the  case. 
There  is  a  suggestive  textual  variant  in  xxxv.  28,  and  there 
is  a  no  less  suggestive  difference  of  translation  (involving  no 
alteration  of  the  Hebrew  text)  in  xxvii.  41.  First,  as  to 
the  variant  reading.  According  to  the  Massoretic  text  of 
xxxv.  28,  Isaac  was  180  years  old  when  he  died.  According 
to  Septuagintal  MSS.  d,  p,  the  number  should  be  150.  It  is 
remarkable  that  these  are  the  very  MSS.  which  present 
valuable  chronological  variations  in  the  case  of  the  dif- 
ficulty with  regard  to  Ishmael's  birth.^  It  seems  certain 
that  they  represent  a  recension  of  the  Septuagint  which  in 
some  important  matters  goes  back  to  a  textual  tradition  that 
differed  from  the  Massoretic. 

The  number  150  may  or  may  not  represent  the  original 
reading  of  the  Hebrew,  but  it  provides  a  useful  reminder 
that  nothing  is  more  susceptible  to  corruption  than  numbers. 
It  also  —  and  this  is  a  more  important  point  —  reminds  us 
that  numbers  of  this  kind  are  merely  round  numbers,  not  to 
be  taken  literally.  It  is  astonishing  to  find  Dr.  Driver  plac- 
ing reliance  on  such  numbers  as  60  and  40  in  xxv.  26  and 
xxvi.  34.  It  is  well  known  that  these  numbers  are  often  used 
in  the  Bible  where  we  should  employ  such  phrases  as  "  sev- 
eral," "  a  considerable  number  of,"'  etc.  That  is  to  say,  they 
frequently  express  an  unknown  or  indeterminate  period  of 
some  duration.  Hence  calculations  based  on  them  are  apt 
to  be  fallacious,  and  this  part  of  the  argument  is  therefore 
unsound. 

More  interest  perhaps  attaches  to  the  rendering  of  xxvii. 
41.  "  We  picture  him  as  lying  on  his  death-bed."  Yes,  but 
why  ?  Chiefly  because  the  English  versions  represent 
^  See  infra,  p.  81. 


24  Pcntatciichal  Studies 

Esau  as  stating,  in  this  verse,  that  the  days  of  mourning  for 
his  father  are  at  hand.  We  thus  appear  to  have  the  unim- 
peachable authority  of  the  eldest  son  for  the  view  that  Isaac 
was  in  a  critical  condition.  But  this  rendering  is  not 
the  only  one  possible,  nor  was  it  adopted  by  the  Sep- 
tuagintal  translators.  In  their  view  the  Hebrew  ex- 
presses a  ferocious  wish :  '"  ]\Iay  the  days  of  mourning  for 
my  father  approach,  in  order  that  I  may  slay  my  brother 
Jacob."  That  is  a  very  different  thing  from  a  statement  that 
they  actually  are  at  hand.  And  this  translation  surely  has 
the  advantage  of  representing  far  more  truly  and  vividly  the 
fierce,  unbridled  character  of  the  man  and  the  intensity  of 
his  hatred  for  his  brother.  He  prays  for  his  father's  death, 
in  order  that  he  may  kill  Jacob.  Assuredly  the  view  of  the 
Septuagintal  translators  is  more  in  accordance  with  the  known 
character  of  the  nomads  of  the  desert  than  the  kid-glove 
alternative  of  the  English  versions. 

If  the  chapter  be  read  in  the  light  of  this  modification,  we 
find  that  the  idea  that  Isaac  is  dying  has  no  substantial  basis. 
When  we  look  at  the  real  nature  of  the  event,  we  see  that 
the  patriarch,  being  an  old  man,  thinks  that  he  may  die  at 
any  time,  and  had  therefore  best  put  his  affairs  in  order. 
"  Behold  now,  T  am  old,  I  know  not  the  day  of  my  death. . .  , 
make  me  savory  meat.  . .  .that  my  soul  may  bless  thee  before 
I  die "  (ver.  2,  4).  Most  people  to-day  must  be  familiar 
with  cases  of  old  men  who  could  have  said  the  same  thing, 
made  their  wills  to  meet  the  eventuality  with  due  prudence, 
and  lived  for  many  years  after.  Such  things  are,  after  all, 
matters  of  everyday  experience  in  any  large  community. 
The  only  modern  touch  that  is  wanting  in  the  picture  is,  that 
Isaac  had  not  been  "  given  up  "  by  the  most  celebrated  phy- 
sicians of  the  day.     But  I  have  no  doul)t  tliat  old  men  some- 


The  Age  of  Isaac  35 

times  lived  much  longer  than  was  expected,  even  when  there 
were  no  doctors  to  prophesy  their  impending  demise.  Any 
reader  of  mature  age  could  cite  cases  from  his  own  experi- 
ence in  which  a  man  has  lived  twenty  or  thirty  years  after 
his  death  had  been  confidently  anticipated.  Surely  the  Bible 
narrative  is  not  to  be  condemned  as  unhistorical  on  the  simple 
ground  that  it  presents  us  with  episodes  that  in  their  main 
essentials  could  be  paralleled  from  the  most  ordinary 
experience. 


V 


THE  POST-MOSAICA  OF  GENESIS 

[From  the  Bihliotheca  Sac7a,  January,  1911.] 
The  application  of  textual  criticism  reduces  the  post- 
Mosaica  of  Genesis  to  a  neglig-ible  quantity.  We  have  seen 
that  the  Septua^^intal  evidence  removes  Genesis  xxii.  from  the 
category  of  passages  that  could  have  been  written  only  after 
the  time  of  Moses.^  Two  of  the  other  best-known  passages  are 
treated  by  Dr.  Carpenter  as  the  additions  of  glossators  —  in 
my  opinion  rightly.  These  are  xii.  6b  ("And  the  Canaanite 
was  then  in  the  land  ")  and  xiii.  7b  ("And  the  Canaanite  and 
the  Perizzite  dwelled  then  in  the  land").  In  these  passages 
"  then  "  if  interpreted  to  mean  "  then  still  "  cannot  be  earlier 
than  the  time  of  Solomon;  and  this  seems  the  more  plausible 
interpretation.  Another  passage  that  should  probably  be  re- 
garded as  a  commentator's  addition  is  xxxvi.  31-39.  Dr. 
Carpenter's  note  on  the  first  of  these  verses  is  as  follows: 
"  With  this  verse  R  introduces  an  extract  32-39  from  a  doc- 
ument wholly  different  in  style  from  the  context.  Its  source 
is  unknown,  but  on  the  analogy  of  other  passages  of  com- 
posite origin,  e.g.  x,  it  is  provisionally  assigned  to  J." 

With  the  exception  of  a  single  word  the  other  texts  on  which 
the  critics  rely  to  prove  the  late  date  of  Genesis  all  fail  to  do 
so  when  carefully  examined.  It  is  said  that  the  use  of  the 
"  sea  "  to  denote  the  West  points  to  a  narrator  who  lived 
in  Palestine.  Thus  we  read  in  xii.  8,  "  having  Bethel  on  the 
sea  side";  xiii.  14,  "northward  and  southward  and  eastward 
and  seaward."  The  conclusion  most  certainly  does  not  follow 
from  the  premise,  for  a  narrator  could  easily  picture  to  him- 
'  See  supra,  No.  ;!,  "The  Diitlng  of  Genesis  xxii." 
2G 


The  Post-Mosaica  of  Genesis  27 

self  the  geographical  situation  of  Palestine,  wherever  he  might 
himself  be  living;  but  in  point  of  fact  the  linguistic  usage  of 
"  seaward  "  for  "  westward  "  is  more  probably  to  be  explained 
by  the  incorporation  in  Genesis  of  stories  that  had  come  down 
from  the  patriarchal  times  with  their  language  unchanged.  A 
very  strong  instance  of  this  occurs  in  x.  19 :  "  As  thou  goest 
toward  Sodom  and  Gomorrah  and  Admah  and  Zeboiim,"  —  a 
phrase  that  could  not  have  originated  after  the  destruction  of 
the  places  named  in  Abraham's  time.  In  the  face  of  such  a 
passage  as  this  no  argument  for  late  date  can  be  drawn  from 
the  usage  of  the  word  "  sea  " ;  but  a  presumption  of  very 
early  date  arises. 

As  Konig  points  out,  the  name  "  Hebron  "  in  Genesis  does 
not  prove  post-Mosaic  origin ;  because,  though  Joshua  xiv.  15 
states  that  "  the  name  of  Hebron  beforetime  was  Kiriath- 
arba,"  we  have  no  knowledge  as  to  when  the  change  of  name 
was  made.  The  narrative  does  not  suggest  that  Caleb  was 
responsible  for  the  change.  On  the  contrary,  in  the  preced- 
ing verses  the  place  is  called  Hebron,  as  would  be  done  if  it 
had  already  borne  that  name  when  the  gift  was  made.  Hence 
this  antiquarian  note  does  nothing  to  prove  the  post-Mosaic 
date  of  passages  in  the  Pentateuch. 

More  important  is  the  argument  based  on  the  phrase  "  the 
land  of  the  Hebrews  "  in  xl.  15.  This  is  supposed  to  be  an 
anachronism,  on  the  ground  that  Canaan  could  not  have  been 
called  the  land  of  the  Hebrews  before  the  conquest. 

The  ordinary  Septuagintal  text  here  reads  "  land  of  He- 
brews." The  unusual  omission  of  the  article  cannot  be  due  to 
chance ;  for  "  land  of  Hebrews  "  is  neither  Greek  nor  Hebrew 
for  "  land  of  the  Hebrews."  Therefore  the  original  text  must 
have  contained  some  place  name  instead  of  the  word  "  He- 
brews."    Only  two  variants  are  recorded  in  the  larger  Cam- 


28  Pcntatciichal  Studies 

bridge  LXX :  one  of  these  is  "  of  Egypt,"  the  other  "  of  a 
Hebrew."  Neither  of  these  makes  sense:  but  both  confirm 
the  inference  that  must  be  drawn  from  the  absence  of  the 
article.  They  appear  to  go  back  to  a  text  in  which  some 
singular  word  stood.  We  are  therefore  definitely  able  to  say 
that  there  is  corruption  in  this  passage,  but  with  our  present 
materials  we  cannot  restore  the  original  text. 

Most  of  the  other  alleged  post-Mosaica  appear  to  be  gener- 
ally abandoned  by  the  critics.  Since  the  discovery  of  the 
Tel  el-Amarna  tablets,  "  Salem  "  in  xiv.  18  no  longer  ranks  as 
an  anachronism.  It  was  once  claimed  that  the  "  tower  of 
Eder  "  in  xxxv.  21  pointed  to  late  date  (cp.  Micah  iv.  8 ;  Neh. 
iii.  1),  but  nothing  is  now  heard  of  this  curious  contention.  Dr. 
Driver  holds  that  "in  Israel"  (xxxiv.  7)  is  inconsistent  with 
Mosaic  authorship,  but  is  so  palpably  in  error  that  his  fellow- 
critics  do  not  generally  advance  this  argument.  //  the  gloss 
in  1  Samuel  ix.  9  is  in  all  respects  accurate,  and  if  the  word 
"  prophet "  in  Genesis  xx.  7  is  used  in  precisely  the  same 
meaning  as  under  the  monarchy,  then  no  doubt  a  case  may  be 
made  against  this  word ;  but  the  postulates  place  considerable 
strain  on  men's  faith. 

There  is,  however,  one  word  in  Genesis  against  which  a  good 
case  can  be  made  —  the  name  "  Dan  "  in  xiv.  14.  This  would 
naturally  be  identified  with  the  later  Dan,  for  the  hypothesis 
that  there  might  be  another  place  of  this  name  possesses  little 
probability.  The  only  variants  recorded  in  the  larger  Cam- 
bridge Septuagint  —  "  Dam  "  and  "  Dathan  "  —  appear  to  be 
due  to  Greek  corruptions.  The  word  may  be  a  gloss,  as  Dr. 
Orr  thinks :  it  may,  however,  equally  well  be  a  corruption  of 
some  other  word.  In  any  case  it  would  show  a  lamentable 
lack  of  proportion  to  argue  for  a  late  date  for  Genesis  as  a 
whole  on  the  ground  of  this  single  word. 


VI 


THE    ANSWER   OF    TEXTUAL   CRITICISM    TO    THE 

HIGHER  CRITICISM  OF  THE  STORY 

OF  JOSEPH    (I) 

[From  the  Bibliotheca  Sacra,  January,   1910.] 

It  has  been  shown  in  articles  that  have  appeared  in  the 
Bibliotheca  Sacra  during  the  past  few  years  how  the  mod- 
ern critical  theory  breaks  down  at  one  point  after  another 
when  submitted  to  adequate  tests. 

Amongst  other  arguments,  evidence  has  been  advanced  to 
prove  that  in  many  instances  scientific  textual  criticism  kills 
the  higher  criticism.  It  is  believed  that  this  is  so  to  a  very 
large  extent  in  the  book  of  Genesis,  and  it  is  proposed  in  the 
present  article  to  utilize  some  of  the  material  for  this  purpose. 

The  writings  of  Moses  have  been  subjected  to  prolonged 
study  during  many  centuries,  and  countless  notes  have  been 
written  on  them.  Nowadays  such  notes  are  written  or  printed 
in  a  form  which  renders  any  mistake  as  to  their  nature  impos- 
sible, but  this  was  not  always  so.  As  with  all  ancient  books 
that  have  depended  on  a  MS.  tradition,  so  with  these,  there  is 
reason  to  suppose  that  many  glosses  have  been  incorporated 
with  the  text.  By  the  removal  of  such  glosses  —  assuming 
that  such  removal  is  possible  —  the  text  would  gain  in  clear- 
ness. It  happens  that  Septuagintal  and  other  readings  that 
have  been  preserved  to  us  often  suggest  that  words  and  clauses 
found  in  our  Massoretic  text  are  not  original.  Of  course  the 
mere  fact  that  some  authority  omits  a  word  is  not  in  itself  suf- 
ficient to  show  that  the  word  is  a  gloss ;  but  if  the  result  of  the 
omission  is  to  leave  a  superior  text,  and  if  the  presence  of  the 
29 


30  Pcntatcuchal  Studies 

word  is  most  easily  accounted  for  as  the  work  of  a  glossator, 
a  presumption  arises  that  the  shorter  text  is  the  more  correct. 
As  a  general  rule  such  omissions  will  not  affect  the  sense  ma- 
terially, though  they  may  enhance  the  literary  beauty  of  the 
narrative ;  but  there  are  cases  where  grave  difficulties  disap- 
pear when  the  glosses  are  removed.  A  very  interesting  ex- 
ample occurs  in  xxi.  1,  where  the  Septuagintal  AIS.  n  omits 
the  words  "  And  the  Lord  did  unto  Sarah  as  he  had  spoken." 
This  leaves  the  sense  unaffected,  but  it  makes  the  narrative 
more  vigorous  and  robs  the  higher  critics  of  a  "  doublet." 
Examination  of  the  text  suggests  too  that  the  lists  of  words 
on  which  the  critics  often  place  so  much  reliance  are  largely 
due  to  the  interpolations  of  glossators.  We  shall  find  instances 
in  the  narrative  we  are  to  examine. 

A  particularly  favorable  example  of  the  use  of  textual  crit- 
icism is  to  be  found  in  the  story  of  Joseph.  It  will  be  best  to 
omit  chapter  xxxvii.  for  the  present,  because  it  calls  for  the 
weighing  of  rather  delicate  arguments,  and  this  can  be  better 
effected  in  the  light  of  the  experience  to  be  gained  by  first 
considering  the  text  of  the  later  chapters.  In  the  Massoretic 
text  we  find  in  xxxix.  20  f .  that  Joseph's  master  threw  him  into 
prison.  "  the  place  where  the  king's  prisoners  were  bound." 
He  acquired  favor  with  the  keeper  of  the  prison,  and  so  came 
into  the  position  which  brought  him  into  touch  with  Pharaoh's 
two  officers  when  they  were  imprisoned.  But  in  chapter  xl.  we 
find  him  imprisoned  "  in  the  house  of  the  captain  of  the 
guard,"  i.e.  his  master  (called  Potiphar  in  xxxix.  1),  and  it  is 
this  captain  who  puts  Joseph  in  charge  of  the  officers,  the 
keeper  of  the  prison  having  disappeared  altogether  and  the 
prison  itself  being  suddenly  identified  with  "  the  house  of  the 
captain  of  the  guard."  The  discrepancy  is  undeniable.  The 
higher  critics  try  to  remove  it  by  resolving  the  story  into  two. 


The  Story  of  Joseph  31 

On  this  view,  J  makes  Joseph  the  slave  of  an  Egyptian  who 
throws  him  into  prison,  while  E  makes  him  the  slave  of  the 
captain  of  the  guard  in  whose  house  the  two  officers  are  bound. 
Dr.  Carpenter  therefore  gives  to  redactors  the  following 
phrases :  Genesis  xxxix.  1,  "  Potiphar  an  officer  of  Pharaoh's, 
the  captain  of  the  guard  " ;  ver.  20,  "  the  place  where  the  king's 
prisoners  were  bound  " ;  xl.  1,  "  that  the  butler  of  the  king  of 
Egypt  and  his  baker  offended  their  lord,  the  king  of  Egypt " ; 
ver.  3,  "  into  the  prison  the  place  where  Joseph  was  bound  " ; 
ver.  5,  "  the  butler  and  the  baker  of  the  king  of  Egypt,  which 
were  bound  in  the  prison  " ;  ver.  7,  "  with  him  " ;  ver.  15, 
"  And  here  also  have  I  done  nothing  that  they  should  put  me 
into  the  dungeon  " ;  xli.  14,  "  And  they  brought  him  hastily 
out  of  the  dungeon." 

The  Septuagintal  evidence  entirely  disposes  of  all  this.  Ex- 
cept in  xl.  5,  7,  it  confirms  the  Massoretic  text  of  the  passages 
rejected  by  Dr.  Carpenter,  and  it  shows  that  the  discrepancy 
has  arisen  not  as  the  result  of  the  combination  of  two  stories, 
but  partly  through  the  corruption  of  a  few  letters,  partly 
through  the  work  of  glossators.  The  text  of  chapter  xxxix. 
calls  for  no  notice  here ;  for,  though  the  evidence  suggests  that 
a  few  words  here  and  there  have  been  added  by  glossators,^ 
these  do  not  at  all  affect  the  problem  we  have  to  consider.  But 
in  chapter  xl.  the  matter  is  different.     In  verse  3  the  words 

^  For  example,  the  original  LXX  certainly  omitted  the  following 
(among  other)  phrases:  ver.  3,  "in  his  hand";  ver.  11,  "of  the 
men  of  the  house"  (omitted  by  Vulgate)  ;  ver,  12,  "in  her  hand"; 
ver.  13,  the  whole  verse ;  ver.  22,  "  he  was  the  doer  of  it."  It  prob- 
ably also  omitted  the  following  phrases :  ver.  5,  "  and  over  all  that 
he  had " ;  ver.  10,  "  or  to  be  with  her "  ( ?  omitted  by  Vulgate)  ; 
ver.  20,  "  and  he  was  there  in  the  prison."  The  omission  of  verse 
13  is  due  to  homoeoteleuton  (for  in  the  Hebrew  verses  12  and  13 
both  end  with  the  same  word),  but  the  others  may  all  be  glosses, 
and  indeed  probably  are.  In  no  case  does  their  removal  affect  the 
materially. 


32  PentatciiQhal  Studies 

"  in  the  house  of  the  captain  of  the  guard  "  were  lacking  in  the 

original  LXX  and  are  known  to  have  been  added  by  Origen. 

In  verse  4  the  LXX  and  Vulgate  read  "  keeper  of  the  prison  " 

for  "  captain  of  the  guard."    The  Hebrew  of  the  two  phrases 

would  be  as  follows : — 

nnDnn'niL"  "  keeper   of   the   prison " 
D'HaOHTj'  "captain     of     ttie    guard " 

It  is  easy  to  see  that  damage  to  a  MS.  might  be  responsible 
for  a  mistake.  In  verse  7  Lucian  (supported  by  other  Septua- 
gintai  MSS.  and  the  Vulgate)  omits  "  in  his  master's  house." 
In  xli.  10,  A,  the  best  MS.,  (supported  by  four  cursives,)  again 
reads  "  keeper  of  the  prison  "  for  "  captain  of  the  guard." 
These  readings  dispose  of  the  difficulties,  but  it  may  be  well 
to  give  the  text  of  Genesis  xl.  1-7  as  the  LXX  appears  to  have 
had  it  originally,  for  the  purpose  of  showing  the  limits  within 
which  variations  are  possible  in  a  passage  that  seems  to  have 
been  very  extensively  glossed.  The  readings  adopted  in  each 
case  rest  on  some  evidence,  but  the  result  as  a  whole  is  ob- 
tained by  putting  together  hints  from  various  sources. 

"  And  it  came  to  pass  after  these  things,  that  the  butler  of  the 
king  of  Egypt  and  his  baker  offended  their  lord  the  king  of  Egypt, 
and  he  was  wroth  against  his  two  officers.  And  he  put  them  in 
ward  into  the  prison,  the  place  where  Joseph  was  bound.  And  the 
keeper  of  the  prison  charged  Joseph  with  them,  and  he  ministered 
unto  them :  and  they  continued  a  season  in  ward.  And  they 
dreamed  a  dream  both  of  them  in  one  night.  And  Joseph  came  in 
unto  them  in  the  morning,  and  saw  them,  and,  behold,  they  were 
sad.    And  he  asked  them,  Wherefore  look  ye  so  sadly  to-day?" 

This  text  makes  sense.  It  is  also  superior  to  the  Massoretic 
in  other  ways.  In  verse  2  "  Pharaoh  "  is  the  sort  of  explana- 
tory addition  that  is  dear  to  glossators,  and  so  still  more  is  the 
tautologous  "  against  the  chief  of  the  butlers,  and  against  the 
chief  of  the  bakers,"  a  very  clumsy  addition  to  the  text.  In 
verse  5  "  each  man  his  dream  "   is  again  unnecessary,   while 


The  Story  of  Joseph  33 

"  each  man  according  to  tlie  interpretation  of  his  dream " 
makes  no  sense.  The  words  "  the  butler  ....  prison  "  in  the 
same  verse  are  a  very  cumbrous  and  unnatural  piece  of  epexe- 
g-esis,  and  in  verse  7  it  is  extremely  improbable  that  a  narrator 
who  had  just  referred  to  the  officers  as  "them"  should  think 
it  necessary  to  explain  their  identity,  company,  circumstances, 
and  (false)  location  with  the  words  "Pharaoh's  officers  that 
were  with  him  in  ward  in  his  master's  house,"  while  "  saying  " 
is  a  very  frequent  gloss,  being  in  fact  equivalent  to  our  in- 
verted commas.'^  Hence  the  Septuagintal  text  is,  from  a  lit- 
erary point  of  view,  a  great  improvement  on  the  Massoretic. 

The  critical  difficulties,  of  course,  vanish ;  but  it  is  interest- 
ing to  note  that  our  great  philologists  have  attributed  to  early 
sources  late  glosses  that  were  unknown  to  the  Septuagintal 
translators  and  in  some  cases  to  Jerome,  while  referring  to 
redactors  portions  of  the  original  narrative.- 

Genesis  xli.  45  brings  us  to  another  difficulty.  "And  Joseph 
went  out  over  the  land  of  Egypt  "  is  a  doublet  of  the  similar 
statement  in  verse  46.  This  half  verse  and  the  first  half  of 
verse  46  are  therefore  given  to  P.  But  in  point  of  fact  the 
clause  was  missing  in  the  original  LXX,  as  appears  from 
Field's  Hexapla.    It  is  probably  the  work  of  a  glossator.-^ 

^  The  Vulgate  has  Sciscitatus  est  eos  dicens,  i.e.  "  He  asked  them, 
saying." 

-  There  is  Septuagintal  evidence  for  regarding  the  following 
phrases  in  the  Massoretic  text  of  chapter  xli.  as  glosses :  ver.  8, 
"unto  him"  (omitted  by  Vulgate);  ver.  11,  "Pharaoh's"  (the  sec- 
ond occurrence;  omitted  by  Vulgate)  ;  ver.  13,  "Pharaoh's"  (omit- 
ted by  Vulgate). 

'  Septuagintal  evidence  suggests  that  the  following  phrases  in  the 
Massoretic  text  of  chapter  xli.  may  also  be  glosses:  ver.  4,  "the 
ill-favored  and  lean-fleshed  kine " ;  "seven"  (both  omitted  by  Vul- 
gate) ;  ver.  5.  "and  he  slept";  ver.  8,  "And  it  came  to  pass  in  the 
morning,"  "all"  1°,  "Pharaoh"  (omitted  by  Vulgate),  "unto 
Pharaoh"    (omitted  by  Vulgate);  ver.  11,  "we  dreamed  each  man 


34  Fcntatciichal  Studies 

A  similar  remark  must  be  made  as  to  the  phrase  "And  Jo- 
seph knew  his  brethren  "  in  xlii.  8.  This  is  missing  in  a  MS.  of 
Holmes  and  merely  repeats  the  statement  of  the  preceding 
verse.  By  the  critics  it  is  treated  as  a  doublet  and  made  an 
argument  for  dissection. 

At  this  point  it  will  be  well  to  consider  an  argument  that 
affects  many  chapters  of  the  narrative.  Sometimes  we  read 
"Jacob"  and  sometimes  "Israel"  as  the  designation  of  Jo- 
seph's father;  and  it  is  therefore  contended  that  we  have  to 
deal  with  three  sources,  one  of  which  (J)  speaks  of  "  Israel," 
while  the  other  two  (E  and  P)  invariably  call  the  patriarch 
"  Jacob."  Like  so  many  other  critical  contentions,  this  can  be 
supported  only  by  postulating  a  host  of  redactors,  etc.,  who 
would  introduce  the  wrong  names  at  inopportune  moments. 
Thus  in  xlii.  4  (J)  "Jacob"  comes  out;  in  xlvi.  3  (E)  "Is- 
rael" has  been  substituted  for  Jacob;  in  verse  5  (E)  every- 
thing from  "  and  the  sons  of  Israel  "  to  the  end  of  the  verse 
goes  to  a  redactor;  in  xlviii.  8,  11,  21,  (all  E)  "Israel"  has 
again  to  be  removed ;  and  in  xlix.  28  the  beginning  of  the  verse 
down  to  "  unto  them  "  goes  to  a  compiler. 

In  weighing  these  views  it  must  not  be  supposed  that  the 
higher  critics  have  adduced  a  scintilla  of  evidence  in  their  sup- 
according  to  the  interpretation  of  his  dream " ;  ver .  12,  "  Our 
dreams  to  each  man  according  to  his  dream  he  did  interpret "  (prob- 
ably unlcnown  to  the  Vulgate  too)  ;  ver.  17,  "unto  Joseph"  (omit- 
ted by  Vulgate);  ver.  10,  "very,"  "and  lean-fleshed"  (omitted  by 
Vulgate);  ver.  23,  "withered"  (omitted  by  Vulgate);  ver.  27, 
"  and  ill-favored  " ;  ver.  34,  "  in  the  seven  plenteous  years  " ;  ver. 
44,  "or  bis  foot";  ver.  46,  "king  of  Egj'pt";  ver.  51,  "Joseph" 
(omitted  by  Vulgate);  ver.  5G,  "And  the  famine  was  sore  in  the 
land  of  Egypt."  It  will  be  observed  that  in  no  case  does  the  omis- 
sion affect  the  sense.  I  am  therefore  of  the  opinion  that  all  these 
phrases  are  glosses.  It  is  worth  noting  that  in  verse  34  the  LXX 
has  "take  the  fifth  part  of  all  the  products  of  the  land  of  Egypt." 


The  Story  of  Joseph 


35 


port.  Nothing  is  further  from  their  minds.  Their  case  is 
that  certain  phrases  conflict  with  their  theory  and  must  on 
that  account  be  spurious.  The  case  of  the  scientific  textual 
critic,  on  the  other  hand,  is  that  the  textual  evidence  must  be 
carefully  weighed  in  the  light  of  all  relevant  considerations  for 
the  purpose  of  constructing  a  scientific  critical  text,  and  that 
this  process  must  be  conducted  without  reference  to  any  mod- 
ern theories  of  date  and  composition. 

In  point  of  fact  the  occurrences  of  the  names  ''  Jacob  "  and 
"  Israel  "  are  in  many  cases  very  doubtful  from  a  textual  point 
of  view,  as  the  following  table,  which  is  not  exhaustive,  will 
show.  It  should  be  said  that  the  Vulgate  is  more  paraphrastic 
than  the  LXX  and  must  be  used  with  caution,  particularly  in 
its  present  unrevised  condition ;  yet  the  support  it  receives  in 
many  instances  from  other  authorities,  and  the  intrinsic  value 
of  many  of  its  readings,  even  where  it  stands  alone,  entitle  its 
evidence  to  consideration. 


Reference. 

Alleged 

SOUECE. 

Massoretic 
Text. 

Variants. 

Gen.  xxxvii.  2. 

P. 

Jacob. 

Vulgate,  his. 

Gen.  xxxvii.  2. 

J. 

tlieir  father. 

LXX,  Israel  (see  Field's 
Hexapla,  ad.  loc.)  ;  2  cur- 
sives, Jacob. 

Gen.  xxxvii.  3. 

J. 

Israel. 

LXX,  Jacob,  with  some  au- 
thority for  Israel. 

Gen.  xxxvii,  13. 

J. 

Israel. 

1  MS.  of  the  LXX,  his  fa- 

ther. 

Gen.  xxxvii.  14a. 

E. 

he  said. 

Origen  found  Israel  said, 
and  obelized  Israel  (Field). 

Gen.  xxxvii.  34. 

E. 

Jacob. 

Vulgate  omits. 

Gen.  xlii.  4. 

J. 

Jacob. 

LXX  omitted;  Origen  in- 
serted it. 

Gen.  xlii.  5. 

J. 

And  the  sons 

Vulgate    omits    the    whole 

of  Israel. 

phrase ;  1  Septuagintal 
MS.  (y)  omits  the  verse; 
2  (1.  o)  read  Jacob  for 
Israel. 

30 


PciitatcucIwJ  Studies 


Refebence. 


Gen.  xlil.  36. 


Gen.  xliii.  2. 


Gen.  xliii. 


Gen.  xliii.  11. 


Gen.  xlv.  27. 
Gen.  xlv.  28. 


Gen.  xlvi.  1. 
Gen.  xlvi.  2. 

Gen.  xlvi.  5. 


Gen.  xlvi.  6. 


Gen.  xlvi.  8. 


Alleged 
Source. 


Massoketic 
Text. 


Jacob  their 
father. 


their  father. 


unto  Israel 
his  father. 


their  father 
Israel. 


VABL4.NTS. 


I 
E.         j  Jacob 

\  their  father. 
J.         '  Israel. 


Israel. 
Israel. 


Israel  Jacob 
their  father 
( the  Ileb.  or- 
der being, 
and  carried 
the  children 
of  Israel  Ja- 
cob their 
father). 


Jacob. 


Children  of 
Israel. 


1  Heb.  MS.  of  Kennicott's 
reads  Israel  for  Jacob;  1 
Septuagintal  MS.  omits 
the  whole  phrase. 
Vulgate,  Jacob ;  many  Sep- 
tuagintal authorities,  Ja- 
cob their  father. 

1  Heb.  IMS.  of  Kennicott's 
omits  the  whole  phrase; 
Vulgate,  Ethiopic,  and 
Chrysostom  omit   Israel. 

2  Heb.  MSS.  of  Kennicott's 
omit  their  father ;  the  best 
MS.  of  the  LXX  originally 
om'itted  Israel,  while  an- 
other of  Kennicott's  MSS. 
reads,  their  father  Jacob. 
Vulgate  and  1  MS.  of  the 
LXX    (f)   omit. 

1  Heb.  MS.  of  De  Rossi's, 
Vulgate.  1  MS.  of  the  LXX, 
Chrysostom.  omit;  3  MSS. 
of  the  LXX  and  the  Ethi- 
opic read  Jacob. 

2  MSS.  of  the  LXX.  Ja- 
cob. 

1  MS.  of  the  LXX,  Jacob; 
Vulgate  paraphrases. 

Most  Septuagintal  author- 
ities divided  between  Ja- 
cob Israel  their  father,  Ja- 
cob their  father,  and  Is- 
rael Jacob  their  father. 
The  best  MS.  reads  Israel, 
but  omits  Jacol).  The  Vul- 
gate roads  tiilcninlque 
cum  filii,  omitting  both 
names. 

Vulgate,  Old  Latin,  and 
Chrysostom  omit.  The 
other  Septuagintal  author- 
ities divide  as  to  the 
l)roi)er  position  of  the 
word  —  a  fact  that  points 
to  its  not  being  original. 
1  Heb.  MS.  of  Kennicott's 
and  1  MS.  of  the  LXX 
omit. 


Tlic  Story  of  Joseph 


37 


Reference. 

Alleged 
Source. 

Massobetic 
Text. 

Variants. 

Gen.  xlvi.  8. 

P. 

Jacob  and 

1  Heb.  MS.  of  Kennicott's 

his  sons. 

3  MSS.  of  the  LXX  (d,  n, 
p),  and  the  Ethiopic  omit. 
There  are  other  Septua- 
gintal  variations.  Vulgate 
has  ipse  cum  liheris  suis, 
whic^h  may  be  a  para- 
phrase or  may  point  to  a 
different  Heb.  text. 

Gen.  xlvi.  29. 

J. 

Israel. 

Vulgate,  1  MS.  of  the  LXX 
(e),  and  Chrysostom  omit ; 
1  other  MS.  of  the  LXX 
(n),  the  Ethiopic,  and  the 
Syro-Hexaplar  (margin) 
read  Jacob. 

Gen.  xlvi.  30. 

J. 

Israel. 

Vulgate,  his  father. 

Gen.  xlvii.  7. 

P. 

Jacob  1°, 

Vulgate,  Ethiopic,  and  5 
MSS.  of  the  LXX  omit. 

Gen.  xlvii.  7. 

P. 

Jacob  2°. 

Vulgate  omits. 

Gen.  xlvii.  8. 

P. 

Jacob. 

Vulgate  omits;  1  M'S.  of 
the  LXX    (p),   him. 

Gen.  xlvii.  9. 

P. 

Jacob. 

Vulgate  and  1  MS.  of  the 
LXX   (p)  omit. 

Gen.  xlvii.  27. 

J. 

Israel. 

2  MSS.  of  the  LXX  (d,  h) 
and   Chrysostom,   Jacob. 

Gen.  xlvii.  28. 

P. 

Jacob  1°. 

Vulgate  omits,  1  MS.  of 
the  LXX  reads  (in  the 
margin)    Israel. 

Gen.  xlvii.  28. 

P. 

Jacob  2°. 

Vulgate  and  1  MS.  of  the 
LXX    (s)    omit. 

Gen.  xlvii.  29. 

J. 

Israel. 

Vulgate  and  2  MSS.  of  the 
LXX    (d,  f)    omit. 

Gen.  xlvii.  31. 

J. 

And  he 

1    MS.    of    the    LXX    (1), 

said. 

And  Jacob  said. 

Gen.  xlviii.  2. 

E. 

Jacob. 

Vulgate,  the  old  man  (? 
paraphrase). 

Gen.  xlviii.  2. 

J. 

Israel. 

Vulgate,  he;  about  7  MSS. 
of  the  LXX,  and  Jacob. 

Gen.  xlviii.  3. 

P. 

Jacob. 

1  MS.  of  Kennicott's  per- 
haps, Israel.  From  a  Latin 
translation  it  would  seem 
that  the  Syriac  also  has 
Israel.  Vulgate  para- 
phrases, but  has  no  name. 

Gen.  xlviii.  8. 

E. 

Israel. 

Vulgate  omits;  1  MS.  of 
the  LXX    (f),  Jacob. 

Gen.  xlviii.  9. 

J. 

he  said. 

LXX,  Jacob;  Old  Latin, 
Israel. 

38 


Pcntatctichal  Studies 


Refkrknce. 

Alleged 
Source. 

Massobetic 
Text. 

Variants. 

Gen.  xlvill.  10. 

J. 

Israel. 

3  MSS.  of  the  LXX  (d,  p, 
t)    and   Bohairie,   Jacob. 

Gen.  xlviii.  11. 

J. 

Israel. 

Vulgate  omits;  1  MS.  of 
the  LXX,  Jacob. 

Gen.  xlviii.  14. 

J. 

Israel. 

Vulgate,  he. 

Gen.  xlviii.  21. 

E. 

Israel. 

Vulgate  omits. 

Gen.  xlix.  28. 

R  or  P. 

Israel. 

3  Heb.  MSS.  of  De  Rossi 
and  the  LXX,  Jacob  (LXX 
reading  children  of  Jacob 
for  tribes  of  Israel)  ;  1 
Heb.  MS.  of  Kennicott's 
omits. 

Gen.  1.  2. 

J. 

And  the 
physicians 
embalmed- 
Israel. 

Vulgate  and  some  Luci- 
anic  MSS.  of  the  LXX 
omit. 

The  clue  afforded  by  the  Alassoretic  usage  of  Jacob  and 
Israel  in  these  chapters  is  clearly  as  worthless  as  Astruc's  fa- 
mous clue.  The  fact  is  that  in  old  Hebrew  prose  such  phrases 
as  "  and  he  said  "  were  much  commoner  than  in  our  existing 
texts.  Later,  glossators  studded  the  text  with  explanatory 
notes  ("  Joseph,"  "  Pharaoh,"  "  his  father,"  "  Jacob,"  "  Israel," 
etc.).  Sometimes  two  or  three  glosses  would  arise  independ- 
ently, as  where  one  and  the  same  person  might  be  referred  to 
as  "  his  father,"  "  Jacob,"  or  Israel."  It  would  be  easy  to 
make  similar  lists  of  the  omission  by  various  ancient  authori- 
ties of  other  naniL's,  did  anything  depend  on  them.  But  as  a 
rule  such  variations  —  which  make  no  difl'erence  whatever  to 
the  sense — are  quite  unimportant.  It  is  merely  the  latitude 
given  to  the  glossators'  taste  by  Jacob's  possession  of  two  names 
that  has  given  unusual  interest  to  their  proceedings  in  this  case. 
There  is  no  sufficient  rcasou  to  supi^ose  that  the  usage  of  the 
original  text  presented  any  problem,  or  afforded  the  slightest 
justification  for  postulating  a  plurality  of  sources,  following 
different  principles  in  the  naming  of  the  third  ])atriarch. 


VII 


THE   ANSWER    OF    TEXTUAL    CRITICISM    TO    THE 

HIGHER  CRITICISM  OF  THE  STORY 

OF  JOSEPH  (II) 

[From  tile  Bibliotheca  Sacra,  April,   1910.] 

There  has  hitherto  been  one  great  fundamental  historical 
difficulty  in  the  story  of  Joseph.  Most  of  the  details  are  in 
themselves  highly  probable.  The  local  coloring  appears  to  be 
minutely  accurate  in  the  light  of  what  is  known  of  ancient 
Egypt.  Joseph's  sudden  rise  to  power  is  exactly  what  might 
be  expected  at  an  Oriental  court.  The  incident  of  the  pur- 
chase of  the  Egyptians  and  their  lands  finds  world-wide  par- 
allels.^ Famines  and  successions  of  good  years  and  bad  are  in 
themselves  too  frequent  to  arouse  comment ;  but  one  great  his- 
torical improbability  remains.  Is  it  likely  that  a  minister  of 
Joseph's  position  would  personally  serve  all  who  came  to  buy 


corn 


The  other  details  of  his  activity  are  probable  enough.  We 
find  him  at  the  head  of  a  large  office  controlling  a  number  of 
store-houses,^  imprisoning  people  at  pleasure,  residing  with  a 
suite  away  from  the  office,  and  directing  the  policy  of  a  great 
state  department.  Would  such  a  man  act  as  salesman  to  all 
comers?  Undoubtedly  the  Massoretic  text  represents  him  as 
so  doing.  Its  other  expressions  are  all  susceptible  of  reason- 
able explanation,  but  in  xlii.  6  it  says  bluntly :  "And  Joseph 
was  the  governor  over  the  land ;  he  it  was  that  sold  to  all  the 

^  In  xlvii.  21,  for  M.  T.,  ciyi?  ini^  ■l"'3yn,  "  he  removed  them  to 
the  cities,"  the  Samaritan  and  Vulgate  have  D''n3y^  ir.!^  TTiJ/'n,  "  he 
made  them  bondmen."  The  LXX  apparently  had  1^  for  inx  :  but 
otherwise  agrees  with  the  Samaritan. 

*  So  read  in  xli.  56  with  some  ancient  Versions. 
39 


40  PcntatCHchal  Studies 

people  of  the  land."  The  difficulty  was  felt  by  Jerome,  for  he 
paraphrases  and  makes  the  sales  take  place  by  Joseph's  direc- 
tion (ad  ejus  nutum).  On  the  other  hand,  Dr.  Carpenter  is 
inclined  to  assign  the  words  "  was  the  governor  over  the 
land  "  to  R,  on  the  ground  that  the  word  rendered  "  the  gov- 
ernor "  is  late.  The  larger  Cambridge  Septuagint  gives  rea- 
sons for  holding  that  the  difficulties  that  troubled  Jerome  and 
Dr.  Carpenter  are  alike  due  to  the  activity  of  a  commentator. 
One  MS.  (f)  omits  the  first  half  of  the  verse  (down  to  "peo- 
ple of  the  land  ")  ;  and  this  is  clearly  right. 

But  does  the  historical  difficulty  really  vanish  with  this 
change?  Do  we  not  still  see  Joseph  selling  to  the  Egyptians 
and  to  his  brethren?  If  the  narrative  be  carefully  examined 
we  shall  find  the  answer.  It  is  no  doubt  true  that  we  read  of 
Joseph's  selling  to  the  Egyptians  and  other  similar  phrases ; 
but  such  expressions  do  not  necessarily  imply  any  more  than 
that  he  directed  the  operations  of  the  department  that  did  these 
things.  In  the  case  of  his  brethren  the  matter  is  different ;  but 
the  sequel  makes  it  reasonably  plain  that  the  difficulty  merely 
arises  from  the  fact  that  the  narrator's  interest  is  centered  on 
the  moral  and  dramatic  elements  of  the  story,  so  that  he  omits 
details  that  are  irrelevant  to  his  purpose.  It  is  not  to  be  sup- 
posed that  the  accusation  of  being  spies  would  have  sounded 
arbitrary  and  unreasonable  to  Egyptians  who  were  unac- 
quainted with  the  identity  of  the  strangers  who  had  come  to 
buy  corn.  On  the  contrary,  we  must  assume  that  in  taking 
this  line  Joseph  was  acting  as  his  department  would  have  ex- 
pected him  to  act.  In  other  words,  the  charge  was  made  be- 
cause in  the  eyes  of  the  Egyptians  these  foreigners  were  for 
some  reason  or  other  suspect.  It  was  probably  on  this  account 
that  they  were  interviewed  by  Joseph  himself.  It  was  not  that 
he  personally  weighed  out  corn  to  all  comers  and  received  the 


The  Story  of  Joseph  41 

purchase  money  in  exchange,  but  rather  that,  if  circumstances 
arose  that  caused  suspicion,  the  matter  was  brought  before  the 
head  of  the  department.  Whether  the  mere  fact  that  the 
would-be  purchasers  were  foreigners  was  the  sole  ground  of 
suspicion  in  this  case  it  is  impossible  to  tell :  that  there  was 
something  about  them  that  stood  in  need  of  explanation  ap- 
pears to  result  from  the  narrative  and  to  provide  the  solution 
of  the  difficulty  that  has  been  felt.  It  must  be  remembered 
that  the  narrator's  motive  naturally  led  to  the  suppression  of 
all  details  that  did  not  bear  directly  on  the  absorbing  human 
interest :  in  reading  a  story  of  this  kind  one  must  always  bear 
in  mind  the  point  of  view  from  which  it  is  told. 

The  analysis  of  chapter  xlii.  has  already  been  answered  in 
part.  We  have  seen  that  the  Jacob-Israel  clue  and  the  argu- 
ment from  Joseph's  twofold  recognition  of  his  brethren  melt 
away  under  the  rays  of  textual  criticism.  The  same  holds  good 
of  another  critical  argument.  It  is  claimed  that,  in  J,  Joseph 
is  described  by  his  brothers  as  "  the  man  " ;  in  E,  as  "  the  man 
the  lord  of  the  land  "  (xlii.  30,  33).  But,  in  point  of  fact,  in 
verse  30  one  MS.  of  the  LXX  (n)  and  the  Vulgate  omit  "  the 
man,"  and  in  verse  33  the  Vulgate  reads  "  and  he."  In  both 
cases  the  variants  appear  to  be  more  original  than  the  Masso- 
retic  text;  so  that  the  argument  comes  down  to  the  fact  that 
in  verse  30  Joseph  is  spoken  of  as  "  the  lord  of  the  land."  If 
the  critics  choose  to  base  an  argument  on  that,  nobody  need 
begrudge  it  to  them. 

It  is  further  said  that  in  J  "  the  money  is  found  in  the 
mouth  of  the  sacks,  when  one  of  them  is  opened  for  provender 
on  the  way  xlii  27,  28a,  xliii  12,  18,  21,  xliv  8,"  while  in  E 
"  the  money  is  found  in  the  sacks  on  being  emptied  when  they 
reach  Jacob,  provision  for  the  way  being  furnished  separately 
xlii  25,  35."     (Oxford  Hexateuch,  vol.  ii.  p.  66.) 


42  Pciitatciichal  Studies 

First,  as  to  the  location  of  the  money.  In  the  LXX  the 
money  is  found  in  the  mouth  of  the  sack  opened  on  the  way 
in  xHi.  27,  but  the  word  "  mouth  "  is  missing  in  xHii.  12,  18, 
21 :  xHv.  8 ;  so  that  its  presence  in  the  Hebrew  text  must  be 
attributed  to  a  glossator.  Thus  the  story  is  that  when  the 
brothers  reached  the  inn  one  of  them  opened  his  sack  to  ob- 
tain not  provision  for  the  way  but  provender  for  his  ass. 
There  is  here  no  inconsistency.  Subsequently,  on  their  arrival 
home,  the  others  found  that  their  money  also  had  been  re- 
turned. So  far  as  I  can  see,  the  only  discrepancy  that  can  be 
charged  is  that  in  xliii.  21  the  brothers  say,  "  When  we  came 
to  the  lodging-place  and  we  opened  our  sacks  and,  behold, 
every  man's  money  was  in  his  sack,"  etc. ;  while  in  fact  only 
one  of  the  sacks  had  been  opened  there,  the  others  having  been 
opened  at  home.  I  can  only  say  that,  having  regard  to  the 
ordinary  colloquial  habits  of  mankind,  there  is  nothing  in  a 
discrepancy  of  that  kind  to  justify  any  suspicion  as  to  the  unity 
of  the  narrative. 

There  is  one  other  point  that  requires  notice.  The  Hebrew 
generally  uses  for  "sack"  a  word  (nnnox,  amtachath)  not 
found  outside  this  group  of  chapters ;  but  in  verses  25,  27a, 
and  35  (twice)  we  meet  with  PCJ'  {saq)  the  ordinary  word. 
The  alternation  is  very  striking,  and  Dr.  Carpenter  accord- 
ingly attributes  the  first  word  to  J  and  the  second  to  E,  saying, 
that  in  27a  saq  "  seems  due  to  the  compiler."  In  point  of  fact 
in  27  the  LXX  and  Aquila  both  had  amtachath,  which  is,  there- 
fore, probably  the  correct  reading.  But  in  verse  35  a  Septua- 
gintal  MS.  reads  this  word  for  sack  2°,  and  in  verse  25,  so  far 
as  can  be  judged  from  the  text  of  the  Vulgate  in  its  present 
condition,  Jerome  seems  to  have  found  the  same  word.  Thus 
here  too  the  Versions  do  not  confirm  the  critics.  The  present 
text  of  the  Vulgate  is  too  inconsistent  in  its  translations  of  the 


The  Story  of  Joseph  43 

two  words  for  any  certain  inference  to  be  drawn  from  its 
usage,  but  we  may  hope  for  more  light  when  the  revision  that 
has  now  been  undertaken  is  completed.  Meanwhile  it  should 
be  noted  that  the  Massoretic  text  is  clearly  not  a  reliable  guide 
in  this  matter.  Saq  may  be  due  to  glossators  or  the  two  words 
may  have  been  discriminated  to  convey  different  shades  of 
meaning;  but,  for  the  present,  no  certain  conclusion  is  possible. 

The  other  arguments  employed  to  buttress  this  part  of  the 
analysis  are  unworthy  of  attention,  being  merely  based  on  the 
forced  analysis  itself,  and  not  on  anything  in  the  biblical  text.^ 

There  is  nothing  further  in  Mr.  Carpenter's  commentary  on 
the  concluding  chapters  of  the  story  of  Joseph  that  calls  for 
detailed  notice,  but  it  is  desirable  to  say  a  few  words  about 
some  of  the  passages  attributed  to  P.  The  first  of  these  is 
xlvi.  6  f.  In  these  two  verses  the  following  words  are  doubt- 
ful textually  on  Septuagintal  or  Hebrew  evidence  or  both : 
ver.  6,  "  in  the  land  of  Canaan,"  "  Jacob  " ;  ver.  7,  "  with  him," 
"  and   all  his   seed   brought   he   with   him   into   Egypt."      Je- 

*  There  is  Septuagintal  authority  for  suspecting  the  following 
other  phrases  in  these  chapters:  xlii.  2:  "And  he  said"  (omitted 
by  Vulgate),  "and  not  die";  ver.  3,  "ten";  ver.  5,  the  whole  verse; 
ver.  6,  "  with  their  faces " ;  ver.  13,  "  the  sons  of  one  man,"  "  the 
land  of";  ver.  14,  "unto  them"  (omitted  by  Vulgate);  ver.  18, 
"  Joseph  "  (omitted  by  Vulgate)  ;  ver.  22,  "  and  ye  would  not  hear  "  ; 
ver.  32,  "brethren,"  "this  day"  (omitted  by  Vulgate);  ver.  33, 
"  unto  us  "  ;  ver.  34,  "  unto  me,"  "  but  that  ye  are  true  men  "  (omit- 
ted by  Vulgate);  ver.  35,  "they  and  their  father";  xliii.  3,  "say- 
ing" (omitted  by  Vulgate  and  two  of  Kennicott's  MSS.)  ;  ver.  8, 
"  that  we  may  live,"  "  and  also  our  little  ones " ;  ver.  9,  "  unto 
thee";  ver.  13,  "and  arise  go  again"  (Vulgate  has  et  ite  for  the 
whole  phrase)  ;  ver.  14,  "other"  (omitted  by  Vulgate),  "and  Ben- 
jamin"; ver.  15,  "that"  (omitted  by  Vulgate),  "they  took"  2* 
(omitted  by  Vulgate),  "in  their  hand"  (omitted  by  Vulgate)  ;  ver. 
17,  "the  man"  2°  (omitted  by  Vulgate),  "Joseph's"  (omitted  by 
Vulgate);  ver.  22,  "in  our  hand"  (omitted  by  Vulgate);  ver.  24, 
"And  the  man  brought  the  men  into  Joseph's  house"  (compare  ver. 
16,  17)  ;  ver.  26,  "  into  the  house  "    (omitted  by  Vulgate)  ;  ver.  30, 


44  PentaicucJial  Studies 

rome  too  had  a  different  text,  for  he  renders  these  verses 
"(tuleruntque  eum  filii  .  .  .  .)  et  omnia  quae  possederat  in  terra 
Chanaan :  venitque  in  Aegyptum  cum  omni  semine  suo,  filii 
ejus,  et  nepotes,  fiHae,  et  cuncta  simul  progenies."  Then 
comes  a  passage  (ver.  8-27)  given  to  a  late  priestly  v^riter. 
This  is  omitted  from  consideration  as  not  being  an  integral 
part  of  the  story  of  Joseph,  and  we  pass  to  xlvii.  5-11.  Here 
there  is  great  uncertainty  as  to  the  text,  for  the  LXX  omitted 
5  and  6a  (dovi'n  to  "dwelt").  The  last  half  of  the  verse  is 
given  to  J,  and  therefore  does  not  touch  our  inquiry ;  but  in 
verse  9  there  is  ground  for  omitting  everything  after  "  few 
and  evil  have  (they)  been."  In  verse  11  "  land  of '"  should 
probably  be  omitted  before  "  Egypt " ;  while  "  in  the  land  of 
Rameses "  is  of  doubtful  authenticity.  But  once  all  these 
phrases  are  removed,  as  they  perfectly  well  can  be  without  in- 
jury to  the  sense,  what  evidence  is  there  that  these  verses 
should  be  attributed  to  P?  The  same  argument  applies  to 
xlvii.  27b,  28,  where  "  and  were  fruitful,"  "  land  of,"  "  the 
years  of  his  life,"  are  all  doubtful.     In  chapter  xlix.  there  is 

"there"  (omitted  by  Vulgate)  ;  ver.  34,  "And  they  drank  and  wer© 
merry  with  him."  On  the  other  hand,  iu  verse  28  the  LXX  and  the 
Samaritan  add  "And  he  said,  Blessed  be  that  man  of  God,"  after 
"alive."  In  chapter  xliv.  the  following  omissions  may  be  noted: 
ver.  11,  "  and  opened  every  man  his  sack  " ;  ver.  14,  "  house  "  (omit- 
ted by  Vulgate),  "and  he  was  yet  there";  ver.  23,  "youngest"; 
ver.  26,  "  We  cannot  go  down " ;  ver.  27,  "  unto  us."  In  chapter 
xlv.  the  following  may  be  noted :  ver.  3,  "  at  his  presence "  (omit- 
ted by  Vulgate)  ;  ver.  5,  "hither";  ver.  7,  "in  the  earth"  (there  Is 
some  evidence  for  omitting  "to  preserve  you  a  remnant"  and  some 
other  evidence  for  omitting  "  to  save  you  alive  by  a  great  deliver- 
ance." The  Vulgate  omits  "by  a  great  deliverance."  Apparently 
the  present  Hebrew  text  is  conflate)  ;  ver.  12,  "my  brother";  ver. 
16,  "saying"  (omitted  by  Vulgate);  ver.  19.  "this  do  ye"  (omit- 
ted by  Vulgate)  ;  ver.  22,  "  each  man  " ;  ver.  23,  "  corn  and,"  "  and 
victuals"  (omitted  by  Vulgate);  ver.  27,  "which  he  had  said  unto 
them  "  ;  ver.  28.  "  Joseph." 


The  Story  of  Joseph  45 

evidence  for  omitting  "And  he  charged  them,"  "  unto  them  " 
(both  ver.  29)  ;  "  that  is  in  the  field  of  Ephron  the  Hittite,  in 
the  cave  that  is  in  the  field  of  Machpelah,  which  "  (ver.  39- 
30)  ;  "  with  the  field  from  Ephron  the  Hittite  "  (ver.  30)  ;  "  his 
wife  "  1°  (ver.  31)  ;  while  verse  32  is  entirely  omitted  by  the 
Vulgate.  Similarly,  in  1.  13,  "  with  the  field.  .  .  .  Mamre  "  is 
a  glossator's  addition. 

I  now  return  to  chapter  xxxvii.  I  have  left  it  till  the  last 
because  it  contains  a  difficulty  requiring  somewhat  delicate 
textual  operations. 

It  is  supposed  by  the  critics  that  in  J's  story  Judah  was 
prominent,  while  in  E's  version  his  part  was  played  by  Reu- 
ben. Accordingly  verses  21  f.  are  divided.  The  earlier  verse 
is  assigned  to  J  —  "  Reuben  "  being  declared  to  be  an  altera- 
tion of  the  original  text  —  and  the  later  to  E.  The  textual 
evidence  disposes  of  this,  for  the  Vulgate,  supported  by  one 
of  Kennicott's  Hebrew  MSS.,  omits  "And  Reuben  said  unto 
them"  (ver.  22).  It  also  reads  the  second  person  plural  for 
the  first  in  verse  21  ("  Do  not  take  his  Hfe  ").  It  is  clear  that 
in  point  of  fact  the  attitudes  of  Reuben  and  Judah  were  quite 
different.  Reuben  wished  to  save  Joseph,  Judah  to  make 
money  out  of  him  instead  of  killing  him.  There  is  no  hint 
that  the  latter  was  actuated  by  any  nobler  sentiment.  More- 
over the  sequel  points  in  this  direction.  The  language  of  Reu- 
ben in  xlii.  22  ("his  blood  is  required"),  interpreted  natur- 
ally, means  that  he  thought  his  brothers  had  been  responsible 
not  for  selling  but  for  killing  Joseph.^ 

The  real  difficulty  lies  elsewhere.     While  it  is  clear  from 

^It  is  certainly  true  that  in  eliapter  xlii.  Reuben  pleads  unsue- 
cessfully  with  his  father,  while  in  chapter  xliii.  Judah  manages  to 
persuade  him  at  a  later  date;  but  there  is  not  the  slightest  discrep- 
ancy in  all  this.  Reuben's  previous  conduct  had  been  such  as  to 
rob  him  of  all  influence  with  Jacob  (xxxv.  22). 


4G  Pcntatcuchal  Studies 

xxxvii.  25-27,  28b,  and  xxxix.  1  that  Joseph  was  sold  to  Ish- 
maeHtes,  we  read  of  Midianites  in  xxxvii.  28a  and  36.  The 
critics  of  course  postulate  two  stories;  and  they  go  further, 
and  say  that  in  E  Joseph  was  kidnapped,  while  in  J  he  was 
sold.  No  doubt  in  xl.  15  Joseph  speaks  of  having  been  stolen 
from  the  land  of  the  Hebrews,  while  in  xlv.  4  he  uses  the  ex- 
pression "  sold  "  ;  but  in  point  of  fact  both  passages  are  en- 
tirely accurate,  as  he  had  in  fact  been  both  kidnapped  and  sold 
by  his  brothers. 

The  difficulty  is  therefore  really  narrowed  down  to  the  ques- 
tion of  the  Midianites  in  xxxvii.  28  and  36. 

To  facilitate  the  comprehension  of  a  somewhat  technical 
discussion  I  begin  by  setting  out  in  Hebrew  and  English  the 
present  Massoretic  text,  with  what  appears  to  be  the  true  text 
underneath.  For  the  benefit  of  those  who  are  unacquainted 
with  Hebrew,  the  translation  follows  the  order  of  the  Hebrew 
words,  hyphens  connect  the  English  words  corresponding  to 
a  single  Hebrew  equivalent,  and  bars  are  used  to  show  the 
divisions  into  words.' 

Vebse  28. 

English  rendering  of  M.  T. 
Massoretic  Text 
Emended  Text 
English  rendering  of  E.  T. 

English  rendering  of  M.  T. 
Massoretic  Text 
Emended  Text 
English  rendering  of  E.  T. 

What  are  the  facts  and  the  reasons  by  which  these  changes 
can  be  supported  ? 

In    verse    28,    two    of    Kcnnicott's    Hebrew     MSS.    read 
*  It  must  be  remembered  that   in   Hebrew  MSS.  words  were  not 
always  divided,  so  that  in  an  inquiry  of  this  kind  we  must  look  be- 
yond the  divisions. 


:erchants 

anno 

Midianites             Men 

1  D  '  J  (')  T  0  1  0  0)  K'  J  ^ 

the-Ishmaelites 

Verse  36. 

And-the-Midianites 

D  '  -1   n  D   n  1 

And-the-merchants 

The  Story  of  Joseph  47 

"  Mdnm  "  for  "  Mdynm  "  (Midianites).  This  is  indicated 
above  by  placing  the  ^  in  parentheses.  When  the  vowels  are 
added,  this  vv'ord  becomes  Aledanites,  an  expression  that  oc- 
curs again  in  verse  36,  but  is  otherwise  quite  unknown.  In  the 
latter  passage  it  is  generally  regarded  as  a  corruption  from 
"  Mdynm "  (Midianites).  This  exhausts  the  Hebrew  evi- 
dence, but  it  must  be  remembered  that  considerable  latitude 
was  exercised  in  old  MSS.  v/ith  regard  to  certain  letters  called 
the  matres  lectionis;  and  accordingly  in  verse  28  we  are  free 
to  neglect  the  ^  of  the  word  for  "  men,"  and  this  also  is  shown 
by  parentheses. 

After  what  we  have  seen  of  the  habits  of  glossators,  "  men, 
Md(y)nm,  merchants,"  appears  to  be  a  description  that  in  its 
present  condition  is  more  likely  to  be  due  to  a  commentator's 
activity  than  to  the  original  writer.  At  this  point  the  Ver- 
sional  evidence  comes  to  the  rescue.  The  readings  of  most  of 
the  Septuagintal  authorities  afford  no  assistance,  but  E  and 
the  Ethiopic  read  "  the  Ishmaelites  "  for  the  whole  phrase.  At 
first  sight  this  looks  like  a  correction  or  a  gloss  to  avoid  the 
difficulty  of  the  original :  closer  scrutiny  shows  that  that  is  not 
the  case.  A  glossator  does  not  diminish  the  number  of  the 
words  of  the  original.  On  the  contrary  he  adds  to  them.  This 
text  presents  nothing  corresponding  to  the  "  merchants  "  of 
the  Massoretic  text  and  we  had  already  seen  reason  to  suppose 
that  the  Massoretic  text  was  too  full.  Again,  it  has  the  single 
word  "  the  Ishmaelites"  for  the  two  "men,  Md(y)nites."  If 
it  be  compared  letter  for  letter  with  the  Massoretic  text,  it  ap- 
pears that  the  numbers  of  the  letters  exactly  correspond  (al- 
lowing for  the  features  noted  above),  and  that  in  the  middle 
of  both  phrases  we  get  otj*.  For  these  reasons  it  is  fair  to 
suppose  that  "  the  Ishmaelites  "  is  the  original  reading.  Five 
letters  having  become  illegible,  the  text  "  men  Mdnm  "  arose ; 


48  Pcntatcuchal  Studies 

and  in  explanation  of  this  unintelligible  phrase  a  glossator  in- 
terpolated a  note  "  merchants,"  taken  from  the  then  text  of 
verse  36,  conjecturing  that  "  Mdnm  "  must  be  some  out-of-the- 
way  word  for  "  merchants." 

With  regard  to  verse  36  the  case  stands  thus:  There  is  a 
Hexaplar  note  in  Field  that  the  LXX  had  "  Midianites,"  while 
other  copies  had  "  Ishmaelite  merchants  " ;  and  this  reading  is 
supported  by  d  and  p.  "  Midianites  "  does  not  represent  a  va- 
riant to  our  Massoretic  text ;  but  the  alternative  reading  clearly 
does.  In  view  of  the  great  activity  of  glossators  it  is  more 
probable  that  this  reading  is  itself  conflate  than  that  a  long 
word  like  "  Ishmaelites  "  should  have  entirely  fallen  out  of  the 
Hebrew  text  and  the  other  authorities.  By  a  very  easy  corrup- 
tion of  three  letters  of  "  merchants  "  (assuming  the  word  to  be 
original),  we  could  get  the  "  Mdnm  "  of  the  Massoretic  text. 
The  process  would  be  aided  by  the  prior  corruption  of  verse 
28.  This  reading,  too,  would  explain  the  gloss  "  merchants  " 
in  the  earlier  verse.  Lastly,  a  memory  of  it  seems  to  have  sur- 
vived in  the  reading  of  another  Septuagintal  MS.  (t),  which 
has  "the  Midianite  merchants."-  For  all  these  reasons  the 
readings  suggested  above  appear  to  fulfil  most  exactly  the 
conditions  of  the  problem,  and  to  explain  all  the  available  data ; 
and  it  is  submitted  that  they  should  be  adopted.  With  their 
adoption  the  last  and  most  formidable  difficulties  of  this  nar- 
rative entirely  disappear. 


VIII 
THE  SWANSONG  OF  THE  WELLHAUSEN  SCHOOL 

[From   the  Bibliotheca   Hacra,   October,   1910.] 

The  International  Critical  Commentary  is  making  slow 
progress  towards  completion.  Two  new  volumes  have  re- 
cently appeared,  dealing  with  Genesis  and  Chronicles  respect- 
ively. When  it  is  remembered  that  the  first  instalment  of  the 
Commentary  was  published  as  long  ago  as  1895,  that  not  half 
the  books  of  the  Old  Testament  have  hitherto  been  treated  in 
the  series,  and  that  in  the  advertisement  at  the  end  of  Genesis 
no  announcement  is  yet  made  of  any  engagement  for  a  com- 
mentary on  the  book  of  Job,  it  will  be  felt  that  those  responsi- 
ble for  the  enterprise  may  justly  be  blamed  for  a  tardiness 
that  must  impair  the  value  of  the  publication  as  a  whole.  Our 
business,  however,  in  this  article  is  with  a  volume  that  has 
appeared  —  the  long-expected  commentary  on  Genesis.  Its 
full  title  is  "A  Critical  and  Exegetical  Commentary  on  Gene- 
sis "  —  a  grave  misnomer  as  will  presently  appear  —  and  its 
author  is  the  Reverend  Principal  John  Skinner,  D.D. 

Regarded  as  a  whole,  the  book  is  mainly  a  great  and  labor- 
ious collection  of  the  guesses  of  a  particular  school  of  biblical 
students,  made  by  a  writer  who  has  some  literary  feeling  and 
is  not  devoid  of  humor,  but  entirely  lacks  originality  and  crit- 
ical power,  has  no  acquaintance  with  the  methods  of  scientific 
textual  criticism  and  not  the  vaguest  idea  of  what  independent 
research  means.  The  British  theological  schools  have  unhap- 
pily been  reduced  to  the  level  of  an  intellectual  satrapy  of  the 
49 


50  Pcntatcuchal  Studies 

German  Empire,  and  those  who  lead  them  have  never  been 
taught  to  think  for  themselves.  Thus  all  that  Dr.  Skinner  can 
do  is  to  collect  the  views  of  various  German  writers  and  to 
express  his  preference  for  one  or  another,  occasionally  sug- 
gesting some  trifling  modifications. 

And  yet  he  had  an  opportunity  such  as  has  never  before 
fallen  to  any  commentator  on  Genesis  —  for  this  is  the  first 
bulky  new  commentary  on  that  book  that  has  been  published 
since  the  appearance  of  the  larger  Cambridge  Septuagint  — 
and  Dr.  Skinner  had  the  chance  of  doing  pioneer  work  on  the 
text  which  might  have  given  him  lasting  fame  among  biblical 
students,  had  he  been  equal  to  his  undertaking.  But  that  was 
not  to  be.  He  has  indeed  heard  of  the- Cambridge  LXX,  and 
there  are  occasional  references  to  it  (e.g.  pp.  iii,  100,  261), 
while  there  are  a  few  passages  where,  though  it  is  not  ex- 
pressly mentioned,  a  presumption  arises  that  it  has  been  con- 
sulted (e.g.  pp.  513,  532)  ;  but  such  cases  are  very  few  and 
far  between.  Generally  speaking,  it  may  be  said  that  the 
larger  Septuagint  is  of  scarcely  more  use  to  Dr.  Skinner  than 
Dr.  Swete's  edition  would  be,  and  that  he  has  made  no  effort 
to  utilize  the  rich  new  materials  that  it  offers  to  the  true  critic. 
It  is  in  keeping  with  this  that  the  Introduction  contains  no 
section  on  the  text  of  the  book  —  no  general  estimate  of  the 
textual  materials  and  their  value  as  a  whole.  Indeed,  the  Ver- 
sions appear  to  have  been  used  by  Dr.  Skinner  principally  for 
the  purpose  of  interpretation  rather  than  of  textual  criticism. 
This  is  of  course  perfectly  legitimate  —  but  then  why  call  the 
book  a  critical  commentary? 

Before  passing  from  this,  another  strange  feature  must  be 
noticed.  Dr.  Skinner  chronicles  versional  differences  more  or 
less  sporadically,  for  no  obvious  reason,  in  a  manner  that  is 
highly  perplexing.    To  take  an  instance  at  random :  on  page 


The  Swaiisoncr  of  the  WeUhattseii  School  51 

157,  we  read,  in  the  small-print  note  on  viii.  20,  that  the  Greek 
has  God  where  the  Hebrew  has  the  Tetragrammaton.  What 
is  the  object  of  this  remark?  That  Dr.  Skinner  does  not  re- 
gard this  as  the  true  reading  will  appear  hereafter.  It  will 
also  be  seen  that  he  does  not  make  the  slightest  attempt  to 
record  all  divergences  of  the  kind.  On  what  principle,  then, 
is  his  florilegium  of  unrecommended  variants  based?  Why- 
is  there  no  explanation  of  the  use  to  which  he  thinks  they 
should  be  put?  For  myself,  having  read  the  book  from  cover 
to  cover  (except  the  indices,  etc.),  I  am  unable  to  understand 
the  utility  of  the  notes  of  this  type  from  any  conceivable  point 
of  view.  They  are  not  readings  that  Dr.  Skinner  approves 
himself  or  quotes  others  as  recommending.  They  might  very 
easily  mislead  his  readers  into  supposing  that  his  apparatus 
criticus  was  exhaustive  —  though  in  point  of  fact  it  is  ludi- 
crously inadequate.  What  was  his  object  in  setting  out  these 
facts  without  giving  any  clue  to  the  limitations  he  had  set  him- 
self or  the  purpose  he  had  in  view? 

I  wish  that  the  above  criticism  represented  the  worst  that 
could  be  said  of  the  book.  If  it  were  impossible  to  give  Dr. 
Skinner  any  very  high  praise,  it  might  yet  be  said  that  he  had 
produced  a  pleasant  presentation  of  a  number  of  improbable 
guesses,  combined  with  some  useful  facts,  and  the  volume, 
though  possessing  no  independent  value,  might  form  a  passa- 
ble addition  to  the  existing  expositions  of  Genesis.  Unfortu- 
nately there  are  other  and  even  less  pleasing  features,  which 
justify  the  title  I  have  given  this  article. 

I  turn  first  to  Dr.  Skinner's  treatment  of  Astruc's  clue  — 
the  use-  of  Elohim  and  the  Tetragrammaton  in  the  book  of 
Genesis.  The  discussion  will  be  found  in  section  7  of  the  In- 
troduction (pp.  xxxivff.).  After  stating  Astruc's  supposed 
discovery.  Dr.  Skinner  proceeds  as  follows : — 


52  Pcntatcnchal  Studies 

"  While  the  earlier  attempts  to  discredit  Astruc's  discovery  took 
the  direction  of  showing  that  the  use  of  the  two  divine  names  is 
determined  by  a  difference  of  meaning  which  made  the  one  or  the 
other  more  suitable  in  a  particular  connection,  the  more  recent  op- 
position entrenches  itself  mostly  behind  the  uncertainties  of  the 
text,  and  maintains  that  the  Versions  (especially  LXX)  show  the 
Massoretic  Text  to  be  so  unreliable  that  no  analysis  of  documents 
can  be  based  on  its  data:  see  Klostermann,  Dcr  Pentateuch  (1893), 
p.  20  ff.;  Dahse,  Archiv  fiir  Religionswissenschaft  vi.  (1903),  305  ff. ; 
Redpath,  American  Journal  of  Theology,  viii.  (1904),  286  ff. ;  Eerd- 
mans,  Comp.  d.  Oen.  (1908),  34  ff . ;  Wiener,  BibUotheca  Sacra 
(1909),  119  ff.  It  cannot  be  denied  that  the  facts  adduced  by  these 
writers  import  an  element  of  uncertainty  into  the  analysis,  so  far 
as  it  depends  on  the  criterion  of  the  divine  names;  but  the  signifi- 
cance of  the  facts  is  greatly  overrated,  and  the  alternative  theories 
propounded  to  account  for  the  textual  phenomena  are  improbable 
in  the  extreme"  (p.  xxxv). 

I  pause  at  this  point  to  draw  attention  to  the  admission  that 
the  facts  adduced  import  an  element  of  uncertainty  into  the 
analysis,  so  far  as  it  depends  on  this  criterion.  In  spite  of  this 
admission,  Dr.  Skinner  proceeds  throughout  his  book  on  the 
view  that  the  ordinary  analysis  is  substantially  sound,  and 
makes  no  attempt  to  determine  the  modifications  of  the  theory 
necessitated  by  the  new  facts  or  the  limits  of  the  uncertainty 
they  have  imported.    To  proceed  with  his  arguments : — 

"  So  far  as  I  have  observed,  no  attention  is  paid  to  what  is  surely 
a  very  important  factor  of  the  problem,  the  proportion  of  diver- 
gences to  agreements  as  between  LXX  and  Massoretic  Text.  In 
Genesis  the  divine  name  occurs  in  one  or  other  form  about  340 
times  (in  Massoretic  Text,  mn^  143  t.  +  D\-|^S  177  t.  +  ',-:  '•  20  t.). 
The  total  deviations  registered  by  Redpath  (29Gff.)  number  50; 
according  to  Eerdmans  (34  f.)  they  are  49,  i.e  little  more  than 
one-seveuth  of  the  whole.  Is  it  so  certain  that  that  degree  of 
divergence  invalidates  a  documentary  analysis  founded  on  so  much 
larger  a  field  of  undisputed  readings?" 

This  is  a  very  much  graver  feature.  In  the  Expository 
Times  for  May,  1!)09,  the  Rev.  A.  P.  Cox  asked  certain  ques- 
tions (of  which  more  hereafter),  and  Dr.  Skinner  attempted 
to  deal  with  them.     He  then  wrote  (p.  378),  "  in  Genesis  the 


The  Sivansong  of  the  Wellhaiisen  School  53 

Samaritan  version  differs  from  the  Jewish  in  (I  think)  eight 
cases,  and  the  LXX  in  49  —  about  one-sixth  of  the  whole. 
The  other  versions  do  not  count  for  much,  being  all  more  or 
less  influenced  by  the  LXX,  except  Aquila  and  the  Targums," 
etc.  I  answered  this  in  the  July  number  of  the  same  paper, 
and  I  wrote  (p.  474)  :  "  Dr.  Skinner  says  that  the  LXX  dif- 
fers from  M.T.  in  forty-nine  cases.  But  in  an  enormous  num- 
ber of  passages  some  Septuagintal  authority,  e.g.  Lucian  in 
Gen.  xvi.  11  —  sometimes  only  a  single  cursive  —  differs  from 
the  ordinary  LXX  reading.  By  comparing  extant  Hebrew 
variants  which  confirm  some  of  the  Septuagintal  variants,  I 
have  shown  that  importance  attaches  to  these.  Has  Dr.  Skin- 
ner included  all  such  cases  in  his  forty-nine?"  To  this  no 
answer  was  made,  but  in  the  September  number  of  the  same 
paper  Professor  Schlogl,  in  an  independent  reply  to  Dr.  Skin- 
ner's May  discussion,  registers  the  following  figures  for  Gene- 
sis i.  1-Exodus  iii.  12 :  The  Tetragrammaton  alone  occurs 
MS  times  in  the  Massoretic  text.  In  118  places  the  other 
texts  have  Elohim  or  both  appellations,  so  that  there  is  unan- 
imous evidence  for  the  use  of  the  Tetragrammaton  in  only  30 
passages.  According  to  Dr.  Skinner,  143  of  these  148  occur- 
rences are  in  Genesis,  with  which  alone  he  is  concerned.  As- 
suming in  his  favor  that  all  the  30  undisputed  instances  occur 
in  that  book,  the  proportion  of  undisputed  to  disputed  read- 
ings is  30  to  113. 

Next,  Elohim  alone  occurs  179  times  in  the  M.T.  of  the  sec- 
tion examined  by  Dr.  Schlogl.  Only  in  59  passages  have  the 
other  texts  the  Tetragrammaton  (bbth  appellations  in  47). 
According  to  Dr.  Skinner,  Elohim  occurs  177  times  in  Gene- 
sis ;  so  at  the  best  there  are  120  undisputed  readings  here 
against  57. 


54  Pcntatcnchal  Studies 

Lastly,  the  two  appellations  occur  together  20  times  in  the 
M.T.  of  Genesis.  There  are  variants  in  19  out  of  these  20  in- 
stances. 

That  these  facts  shatter  Dr.  Skinner's  reasoning  cannot  be 
denied.  There  are,  however,  other  matters  that  need  explana- 
tion. It  appears  that  while  the  larger  number  of  divergences 
quoted  by  Dr.  Skinner  is  50,  the  total  mentioned  in  a  contro- 
versy to  which  he  was  himself  a  party  was  no  less  than  189 
(in  Genesis  alone). 

The  date  of  the  issue  of  the  Expository  Times  containing 
Dr.  Schlogl's  note  —  to  which  no  reply  of  any  kind  has  been 
made  —  is  September,  1909.  The  date  of  Dr.  Skinner's  pref- 
ace is  April,  1910.  Yet  in  the  latter  he  permits  himself  to 
write:  "At  all  events,  my  own  belief  in  the  essential  sound- 
ness of  the  prevalent  hypothesis  has  been  confirmed  by  the 
renewed  examination  of  the  text  of  Genesis  which  my  present 
undertaking  required."  Now  the  date  of  the  preface  is  prob- 
ably not  the  date  of  the  introduction,  which  was  presumably 
in  type  earlier:  yet  that  introduction  itself  contains  a  refer- 
ence to  so  recent  a  book  as  the  "  Cambridge  Biblical  Essays  " 
(see  p.  xviii),  and  the  Commentary  even  refers  to  the  Expos- 
itory Times  for  November,  1909  (p.  292),  i.e.  to  a  number  that 
appeared  tivo  months  after  Dr.  Schlogl's  note.  But  that  is  not 
all.  In  the  Bibliotheca  Sacra  article  to  which  Dr.  Skinner 
refers  in  this  discussion,  I  had  registered  a  number  of  diver- 
gences other  than  those  mentioned  by  Redpath  and  Eerdmans, 
and  Dr.  Skinner's  attention  had  been  publicly  called  to  this 
fact  in  the  Expository  Times  for  July,  1909.  Further,  while 
Dr.  Skinner  refers  only  to  the  numbers  registered  by  these  two 
writers  who  dealt  with  the  Septuagint  alone,  he  had  himself 
recorded  the  fact  on  page  378  of  the  Expository  Times  for 
May,  1909,   that   the   Samaritan   differs   from   the  Massoretic 


The  Swansong  of  the  Wellhaiisen  School  55 

text  in  8  cases,  and  on  page  330  of  his  commentary  he  regis- 
ters two  Syriac  divergences  (Gen.  xxii.  11  and  15),  and 
actually  adopts  the  Syriac  reading  in  the  former  of  those 
verses.  I  shall  return  to  this  matter  presently.  At  this  stage 
I  ask: — 

1.  Why  did  Dr.  Skinner  mention  only  the  number  of  devia- 
tions registered  by  Redpath  and  Eerdmans  when  to  his  knowl- 
edge there  were  others,  and  when  his  attention  had  been 
publicly  called  to  this  fact? 

2.  Why  did  Dr.  Skinner  put  forward  an  argument  based 
on  that  degree  of  divergence  when  he  well  knew  that  he  had 
not  stated  the  full  facts? 

I  proceed  with  his  discussion.  He  continues : — 
"In  spite  of  the  confident  assertions  of  Dahse  (309)  and  Wiener 
(131  f.)  there  is  not  a  single  instance  in  which  LXX  is  'demonstra- 
bly '  right  against  Massoretic  Text.  It  is  readily  conceded  that  it  is 
probably  right  in  a  few  cases,  but  there  are  two  general  presumptions 
in  favour  of  superior  fidelity  of  the  Massoretic  tradition.  Not  only 
(o)  is  the  chance  of  purely  clerical  confusion  between  7s  and  ^ 
greater  than  between  mn''  and  DNI^iV,  or  even  between  ''  and 
N',  and  (6)  a  change  of  divine  names  more  apt  to  occur  in  trans- 
lation than  in  transcription,  but  (c)  the  distinction  between  a 
proper  name  mn"'  and  a  generic  n^'^!5N  is  much  less  likely  to 
have  been  overlooked  in  copying  than  that  between  two  appel- 
lations Kvpios  and  0e6s.  An  instructive  example  is  iv  26,  where 
LXX    Kvpwt  6  ee6i  Is  'demonstrably'   wrong"    (lac.  cit.). 

Dr.  Skinner's  statement  that  "  there  is  not  a  single  instance 
in  which  LXX  is  '  demonstrably '  right  against  Massoretic 
Text  "  would  have  had  more  weight  if  he  had  attempted  to 
meet  the  facts  and  arguments  that  have  been  advanced.  Thus 
he  makes  no  effort  whatever  to  deal  with  xvi.  11.  Moreover, 
it  is  worth  noting  that  he  himself  rejects  the  Massoretic 
text  in  favor  of  Versional  readings  when  it  suits  him.  On  page 
402  he  writes  of  xxxi.  50,  that  the  LXX  Elohim  must  be 
adopted  if  the  verse  is  rightly  ascribed  to  E,  and,  as  already 


56  Pentateitcha!  Studies 

indicated,  he  adopts  Elohini  from  a  Syriac  reading  elsewhere ; 
but  other  points  in  this  discussion  are  of  even  more  import- 
ance. In  the  Expository  Times  for  May,  1909,  the  Rev.  A.  P. 
Cox  drew  attention  to  the  fact  that,  in  the  BibHotheca  Sacra 
article  to  which  Dr.  Skinner  is  here  replying,  I  had  produced 
evidence  to  show  that  the  versional  variants  rest  on  divergent 
Hebrew  texts,  and  are  not  due  to  avoidance  of  the  Tetragram- 
maton  by  the  translators.  Dr.  Skinner  evaded  the  point  in  his 
Expository  Times  reply,  and  accordingly  in  the  July  number 
of  that  paper,  I  drew  attention  to  Genesis  xvi.  11,  where  Sep- 
tuagintal  authorities  are  supported  by  a  Hebrew  MS.,  and 
continued : — 

"Dr.  Skinner  says  it  Is  reasonable  to  expect  that  Jewish  scribes 
would  be  more  careful  in  this  matter  than  Greek  copyists.  But 
this  instance  shows  that  the  variant  is  a  Hehrew  variant,  for  the 
mistakes  of  Greek  copyists  could  not  possibly  influence  a  Hehrew 
MS.  I  therefore  submit  that  little  reliance  can  be  placed  on  this 
argument.  For  numerous  other  examples  see  pp.  128-130,  150  ff. ;  * 
and  for  a  further  body  of  evidence  drawn  from  the  support  of  other 
Versions,  see  pp.  130  f.'  Once  the  fact  that  the  Greek  rests  on  He- 
brew variants  has  been  established  in  a  number  of  cases,  a  presump- 
tion arises  that  it  does  so  in  other  cases  w'here  no  independent 
testimony  is  preserved ;  and  a  case  is  made  for  further  investiga- 
tion." 

In  view  of  all  this,  I  ask : — 

3.  Why  has  Dr.  Skinner  entirely  ignored  the  Hebrew  vari- 
ants and  argued  on  the  basis  of  causes  purely  internal  to  Greek 
MSS.,  although  his  attention  had  twice  been  publicly  drawn  to 
the  fact  that,  in  a  number  of  passages,  Greek  variants  are  con- 
firmed by  Hebrew  texts?  His  statement  that  in  iv.  2G  the 
Greek  reading  is  demonstrably  wrong  leaves  me  unmoved,  for 

*  I.e.  of  the  Bibliotheca  Sacra  for  January,  1909  z=.  Essays  in  Pen- 
tateuchal  Criticism,  pp.  14  f.,  3G  f . 

•  Op.  cit.,  pp.  15  ff. 


TJic  Szvansong  of  the  Wcllhanscn  School  57 

I  had  written  of  the  LXX,  "  It  has  also  in  a  number  of  cases 
preserved  readings  that  are  demonstrably  inferior."  ^ 

Dr.  Skinner  next  says  that  "  in  the  present  state  of  textual 
criticism  it  is  impossible  to  determine  in  particular  cases  what 
is  the  original  reading."  This,  again,  would  have  had  more 
weight  if  he  had  shown  any  signs  of  attempting  to  deal  with 
the  arguments  of  his  opponents.  That  it  is  impossible  in  a 
very  large  number  of  cases  is  merely  to  repeat  what  I  have 
already  written  in  the  article  that  has  been  cited  so  often ;  but 
solid  reasons  have  been  advanced  for  preferring  Septuagintal 
readings  in  certain  specified  passages,  and  Dr.  Skinner  has 
made  no  attempt  whatever  to  grapple  with  these.^ 

He  then  proceeds  to  argue  on  the  basis  of  averages ;  but 
here  his  figures  are  hopelessly  wrong.  Thus  he  says  that  there 
are  only  4  cases  of  Kvpio^i  and  6  of  Kvpio<;  6  6e6<;  for  n'r^H 
(10  in  all).  This  figure  10  is  now  replaced  by  Dr.  Schlogl's 
59.  It  is,  however,  remarkable  that  Dr.  Skinner,  after  some 
further  discussion,  writes :  "  There  is  force,  however,  in 
Gray's  remark  on  a  particular  case  (Num.  p.  311),  that 
'  wherever  [o]  /c9  appears  in  LXX  it  deserves  attention  as  a 
possible  indication  of  the  original  text.'  "  Why,  if  that  be  so, 
did  not  Dr.  Skinner  devote  attention  to  those  cases  in  Genesis 
in  which,  to  his  knowledge,  the  Septuagint  read  KvpLo<i  (e.g. 
Gen.  xlviii.  15)  ?    The  omission  is  the  more  curious  because  on 

^  Bibliotheca  Sacra,  January,  1909,  pp.  133  f .  =  Essays  in  Penta- 
teuchal  Criticism,  p.  19. 

'  In  noticing  an  article  of  mine  in  the  Biblisclie  Zeitschrift,  Pro- 
fessor Gottsberger  drew  attention  to  three  articles  by  the  late 
Professor  Vetter  in  the  Theologische  Quartalschrift,  vol.  Ixxxv. 
(1903)  pp.  12-47,  202-235,  520-547.  I  have  now  inspected  these 
articles,  and  while  I  am  of  opinion  that  they  contain  some  valua- 
ble hints,  I  think  that  certain  general  criticisms  may  be  made  on 
Professor  Vetter's  work:  (1)  He  made  no  attempt  to  bring  the 
evidence  of  extant  Hebrew  variants  into  consideration.  Yet  these 
form  a  very  important  element  in  weighing  the  value  of  the  Sep- 


58  Pcntatcuchal  Studies 

this  verse  he  quotes  with  approval  Gunkel's  note  "  in  such 
cases  the  polytheist  names  all  the  gods  he  worships,  the  ancient 
monotheist  all  the  names  and  attributes  of  the  God  he  knows." 
If  this  be  true,  does  it  add  nothing  to  the  significance  of  B's 
variation?  And  was  it  no  part  of  the  duty  of  a  "critical" 
commentator  to  take  cognizance  of  such  points? 

Dr.  Skinner  next  writes :  "  The  documentary  theory  fur- 
nishes a  better  explanation  of  the  alternation  of  the  names  than 
any  other  that  has  been  propounded."  He  proceeds  to  argue 
against  certain  hypotheses  of  Redpath  and  Dahse  with  which 
I  am  not  in  agreement.  Of  the  documentary  hypothesis  in 
general,  I  shall  speak  later.  For  the  present,  I  wish  to  see 
how  far  it  provides  an  explanation  of  the  phenomena.  On 
page  xlix  of  the  introduction,  rules  are  laid  down  to  account 
for  J's  using  Elohim  in  certain  instances.  But  the  Commen- 
tary contains  many  admissions  that  are  extremely  damaging  to 
the  hypothesis.  Thus,  on  page  2,  we  find  a  conjecture  that 
there  were  two  recensions  of  J's  Paradise  story  in  Genesis  ii. 
and  iii.,  marked  respectively  by  Elohim  and  the  Tetragram- 
maton,  characterized  as  "  plausible  " ;  on  page  74,  Dr.  Skinner 
is  driven  to  admit  of  one  of  his  artificial  explanations  of  J's 

tuaglntal  readings.  (2)  He  treated  the  text  of  Dr.  Swete's  edition 
(I.e.  the  text  of  the  best  AfS.  available  for  any  particular  passage) 
as  the  text  of  the  Septuagint.  This  procedure  would  not  be  de- 
fended to-day  by  any  responsible  authority.  (3)  He  made  no  at- 
tempt to  weigh  considerations  for  or  against  particular  readings  in 
given  passages.  Such  considerations  may  have  a  vital  bearing  on 
the  larger  question  involved.  (4)  He  did  not  compare  the  evidence 
of  the  different  authorities  in  particular  cases,  but  treated  each  by 
itself  in  separate  compartments.  (5)  He  started  with  a  belief  In 
the  antiquity  and  correctness  of  the  Massoretic  text  that  cannot 
now  be  maintained.  I  am  glad  to  have  this  opportunity  of  drawing 
attention  to  the  care  and  thoroughness  with  which  Professor  Gott3- 
berger  performs  the  task  of  Old  Testament  bibliographer  in  the 
Biblische  Zeitschrlft. 


The  Szvansong  of  the  Wellhansen  School  59 

avoidance  of  the  Tetragrammaton,  that  "  J's  usage  in  such 
cases  is  not  uniform,  and  it  is  doubtful  what  is  the  true  ex- 
planation here  " ;  page  185,  after  a  reference  to  the  preserva- 
tion of  iv.  25  f.,  brings  us  the  following  curious  admission: 
"  The  circumstance  shows  on  how  slight  a  matter  far-reaching 
critical  speculations  may  hang.  But  for  this  apparently  arbi- 
trary decision  of  the  redactor,  the  existence  of  a  Sethite  gene- 
alogy in  J  would  hardly  have  been  suspected ;  and  the  whole 
analysis  of  the  J  document  into  its  component  strata  might 
have  run  a  different  course."  On  page  154,  in  the  small-print 
note,  vii.  8  and  9  are  said  to  "  present  a  mixed  text,"  because, 
while  the  "  distinction  of  clean  and  unclean  points  to  J,"  "  all 
other  features  (Elohim) ,"  etc.,  point  to  P,  in  which  document, 
however,  "  the  verses  are  not  wanted."  On  page  155,  we  read 
of  viii.  lb,  that  "  but  for  the  name  C'npx  the  half-verse  might 
very  well  be  assigned  to  J."  On  page  182,  a  passage  (ix. 
20-27)  is  given  to  J  "  in  spite  of  D'npN'  in  verse  27."  On 
page  289,  the  Tetragrammaton  in  xvii.  1  is  declared  to  be 
"  either  a  redactional  change  or  a  scribal  error."  On  page 
320,  the  Tetragrammaton  of  xxi.  lb  is  "  a  scribal  error."  On 
page  328,  xxii.  11,  14,  go  to  E  "in  spite  of"  the  Massoretic 
Tetragrammaton.  On  page  379,  the  Tetragrammaton  in 
xxviii.  21b  "shows  that  it  does  not  belong  to  E;  and  in  all 
probability  the  clause  is  to  be  omitted  as  a  gloss.  The  apodo- 
sis  then  has  the  same  unusual  form  as  in  xxii  1."  On  page 
402,  Elohim  (of  the  LXX)  "must  be  adopted  if  the  verse 
[xxxi.  50]  is  rightly  ascribed  to  E."  On  page  412,  we  learn 
that  xxxiii.  1-17  "  are  rightly  assigned  in  the  main  to  J,  in 
spite  of  the  fact  that  the  only  divine  name  which  occurs  is 
DMi?^5  in  5b,  10,  11."  Yet  "  in  these  verses  we  must  recognise 
the  hand  of  E ;  and,  for  all  that  appears,  E's  influence  may  ex- 
tend further."     Finally,  on  page  439,  Dr.  Skinner  practically 


60  Pcntatcuchal  Studies 

throws  up  the  sponge  in  dealing  with  the  Joseph  story.  The 
Tetragrammaton,  we  learn,  "  occurs  only  in  chapter  xxxix 
(7  times)  ;  elsewhere  Q''"i^^*  is  invariably  used,  sometimes  in 
contexts  which  would  otherwise  be  naturally  assigned  to  J, 
though  no  reason  appears  why  J  should  depart  from  his  or- 
dinary usage  (e.g.  xlii  28).  It  may  not  always  be  safe  to  rely 
on  this  characteristic  when  it  is  not  supported  by  other  indica- 
tions " !  So,  in  eleven  chapters  out  of  the  fifty,  "  no  reason 
appears  "  why  the  famous  explanation  is  not  explanatory,  and 
in  the  remainder  it  is  perpetually  breaking  down. 

Dr.  Skinner's  last  point  in  this  connection  is  stated  as  fol- 
lows : — 

"  Nevertheless  the  opinion  can  be  maintained  that  the  Massoretic 
Text  is  far  superior  to  the  Versions,  and  that  its  use  of  the  names 
is  a  valuable  clue  to  the  separation  of  documents.  Truth  is  some- 
times stranger  than  fiction;  and,  however  surprising  it  may  appear 
to  some,  we  can  reconcile  our  minds  to  the  belief  that  the  Masso- 
retic Text  does  reproduce  with  substantial  accuracy  the  character- 
istics of  the  original  autographs.  At  present  that  assumption  can 
only  be  tested  by  the  success  or  failure  of  the  analysis  based  on  It " 
(pp.  xxxvif.). 

That  test  will  be  applied  in  some  measure  hereafter:  for  the 
moment  I  wish  to  point  to  one  matter  that  appears  to  me  very 
significant.  Time  after  time  it  happens  that  perplexing  phe- 
nomena of  the  Massoretic  text  can  be  explained  with  supreme 
ease  by  the  natural  processes  of  textual  corruption,  and  the 
Versions  in  very  many  cases  come  to  the  rescue.  To  this  must 
be  added  the  fact  that  the  translation  of  the  Septuagint  is 
much  older  than  the  earliest  known  Hebrew  MS.  It  is  by  no 
means  certain  that  the  ultimate  judgment  of  specialists  will 
favor  the  Massoretic  Pentateuch  against  the  Septuagintal. 
On  the  contrary,  recent  investigations  lead  me  to  incline  to  the 
opinion  that  in  the  long  run  the  latter  may  be  shown  to  have 
a  general  superiority.     What  is  certain,  both  from  the  Ver- 


The  Simnsoit'^  of  the  IVellhauscn  School  61 

sions  and  extant  Hebrew  variants,  is  that  the  Massoretic  text 
is  merely  one  recension  out  of  many  that  were  current  at  one 
time  or  another.  It  should  be  added  that  Professor  Toy  has 
recently  abandoned  Astruc's  clue.  He  writes  as  follows  of  my 
contention  as  to  the  textual  evidence :  "  While  this  point  calls 
for  a  more  thorough  examination  than  has  yet  been  given  it, 
the  conclusion  just  stated  is  not  out  of  keeping  with  the  tone 
of  modern  criticism.  As  is  well  known,  critics  generally  hold 
that  our  Hebrew  text  has  suffered  greatly  from  scribes  and 
editors  in  the  process  of  transmission.  It  is  agreed  that  di- 
vine names  have  been  changed  in  Chronicles,  Psalms,  and 
elsewhere.    Why  not  in  the  Pentateuch  ?"  ^ 

To  avoid  all  possibilities  of  misconception,  I  now  repeat  the 
three  questions  to  which  it  is  most  essential  that  Dr.  Skinner 
should  supply  answers  : — ■ 

1.  Why  did  Dr.  Skinner  mention  only  the  number  of  de- 
viations registered  by  Redpath  and  Eerdmans  when  to  his 
knowledge  there  were  others,  and  when  his  attention  had  been 
publicly  called  to  this  fact? 

2.  Why  did  Dr.  Skinner  put  forward  an  argument  based  on 
that  degree  of  divergence  when  he  well  knew  that  he  had  not 
stated  the  full  facts  ? 

3.  Why  has  Dr.  Skinner  entirely  ignored  the  Hebrew  vari- 
ants and  argued  on  the  basis  of  causes  purely  internal  to  Greek 
MSS.,  although  his  attention  had  twice  been  publicly  drawn 
to  the  fact  that  in  a  number  of  passages  Greek  variants  are 
confirmed  by  Hebrew  texts? 

Whatever  the  answers  to  these  questions  may  be,  it  is  ob- 
vious that  the  documentary  theory  is  mortally  wounded  when 
its  exponents  do  not  meet  the   facts  and  arguments  publicly 
advanced  against  them.     The  theory  may  stagger  on  for  a 
>The  Christian  Register,  April  28,  1910. 


62  Pentatciichal  Studies 

while,  owing  to  the  momentum  it  has  already  gained.  Such 
books  as  Dr.  Skinner's  may  serve  to  delay  the  recognition  of 
the  truth  in  certain  circles.  More  than  that  they  cannot  do 
for  not  merely  is  truth  sometimes  stranger  than  fiction :  in  the 
long  run  it  is  always  stronger.  Magna  est  Veritas,  et  prae- 
valcbit. 

In  treating  of  Dr.  Skinner's  presentation  of  the  documen- 
tary theory,  I  shall  confine  myself  to  the  main  Genesis  phenom- 
ena, although  much  of  his  case  rests  on  other  considerations. 
My  reason  is  that  most  of  these  have  already  been  dealt  with 
in  other  publications.  For  example,  anybody  who  has  read 
the  sixth  chapter  of  "  Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism " 
(which  appeared  in  the  Bibliotheca  Sacra  for  October,  1909) 
will  greet  with  hilarity  this  sentence  of  Dr.  Skinner's :  "  It 
is  particularly  noteworthy  that  the  profane,  as  distinct  from 
the  sacrificial,  slaughter  of  animals,  which  even  the  Deuter- 
onomic  law  treats  as  an  innovation,  is  here  carried  back  to  the 
covenant  with  Noah"  (p.  Ix).  The  real  pillars  of  the  hy- 
pothesis have  already  been  destroyed.  It  is  the  documentary 
theory  in  the  book  of  Genesis  that  we  have  to  consider.  Of 
this,  Dr.  Skinner  writes  in  his  preface: — 

"  It  has  to  be  remembered  that  the  analytic  process  is  a  chain 
which  is  a  good  deal  stronger  than  its  weakest  link,  that  it  starts 
from  cases  where  diversity  of  authorship  is  almost  incontroverti- 
ble, and  moves  on  to  others  where  it  is  less  certain ;  and  it  is  surely 
evident  that  when  the  composition  of  sources  is  once  established, 
the  slightest  differences  of  representation  or  language  assume  a 
significance  which  they  might  not  have  apart  from  that  presump- 
tion" (pp.  viil  f.). 

That  is  an  excellent  statement  of  certain  higher  critical  fal- 
lacies :  and  I  must  try  and  point  them  out  as  clearly  as  I  can. 

1.  The  statement  that  "the  analytic  process  is  a  chain" 
begs  the  question.   Quite  apart  from'  the  objection  to  the  meta- 


TJie  Swaiisong  of  the  JVcllhanscii  School  Go 

phor  —  and  I  shall  endeavor  to  suggest  a  happier  one  here- 
after —  there  is  a  very  strong  objection  indeed  to  the  main 
idea.  It  does  not  follow  from  an  analysis  of  the  first  three 
chapters  of  Genesis,  that  an  attempt  should  be  made  to  dissect 
the  last  eleven.  There  may  be  two  or  more  creation  stories 
and  only  one  Joseph  story.  How  many  creation  stories  and 
how  many  Joseph  stories  there  are  constitute  questions  which 
it  may  or  may  not  be  possible  to  answer  after  investigation; 
but  the  number  is  not  necessarily  or  even  probably  the  same 
in  the  two  cases. 

3.  The  fact  that  there  are  cases  in  Genesis  where  "  diversity 
of  authorship  is  almost  incontrovertible "  does  substantially 
nothing  to  help  the  documentary  theory,  for  it  is  not  to  be  sup- 
posed that  the  author  of  the  Pentateuch  was  guilty  of  free 
invention  for  the  whole  pre-Mosaic  period.  Let  me  take  a 
concrete  instance.  (It  is  one  that  I  have  quoted  before  in  the 
Bibliotheca  Sacra,  and  that  Dr.  Skinner  has  not  ventured  to 
tackle,  although  it  occurred  in  the  article  to  which  he  refers, 
and  although  I  carefully  confronted  him  with  it  in  the  Expos- 
itory Times  for  July,  1909.)  In  x.  19  we  read  the  words  "As 
thou  comest  to  Sodom  and  Gomorrah  and  Admah  and  Zeboiim." 
Such  language  could  have  originated  only  when  the  places 
named  were  in  existence.  They  were  destroyed  in  the  time 
of  Abraham.  The  verse  cannot  therefore  be  later  than  that 
period.  Dr.  Skinner  assigns  it  to  J,  who  "  will  hardly  be 
earlier  than  the  9th"  century  (p.  liv).  That  is  to  say,  that 
Dr.  Skinner  is  probably  about  eleven  hundred  years  out.  It  is 
"  almost  incontrovertible  "  that  this  verse  is  not  by  any  writer 
who  could  narrate,  say,  the  Joseph  story:  for  it  could  have 
originated  only  before  the  birth  of  Joseph.  Now  what  has 
happened  in  this  case?  First,  the  documentary  theorists  have 
grouped  it  with  a  number  of  other  passages  which  must  be 


64  Pcntatcnchal  Studies 

from  later  hands.  Secondly,  they  have  dated  it  eleven  hun- 
dred years  too  late.  Thirdly,  they  have  treated  later  compo- 
sitions (e.g.  the  song-  of  Deborah,  which  cannot  have  been 
written  before  the  events  to  which  it  relates)  as  being  earlier 
than  this  very  ancient  passage.  Why  have  they  done  these 
things?  Because  they  held  that  the  analytic  process  was  a 
chain,  and  that  consequently  a  number  of  continuous  docu- 
ments could  be  recovered  mainly  on  the  basis  of  the  Divine 
appellations.  Here  then  an  "  almost  incontrovertible  "  "  di- 
versity of  authorship  "  hoists  the  critics  with  their  own  petard. 
But,  once  it  is  proved  that  compositions  long  precedent  to  the 
time  of  Moses  are  included  in  Genesis,  no  presumption  in  fa- 
vor of  a  documentary  theory  such  as  that  supported  by  Dr. 
Skinner  arises.  There  might  have  been  two  or  two  hundred 
creation  stories  in  circulation  before  the  days  of  Moses,  but 
this  proves  nothing.  There  is  no  evidence  whatever  of  a  late 
origin  of  the  creation  stories.  In  ii.  14  we  perhaps  read  of 
the  Tigris  as  flowing  "  east  of  Ashur."  Professor  Gressmann 
has  pointed  out  that  this  was  only  true  before  1300  B.C.,  for 
about  that  date  the  ancient  capital  of  Assyria  on  the  right 
(west)  bank  of  the  Tigris  was  replaced  by  Kalchi,  on  the 
left  (east).^  If,  therefore,  the  translation  "east"  be  correct, 
this  passage  also  must  be  pre-Mosaic,  since  after  1300  b.c. 
the  Tigris  was  on  the  west  of  Ashur.  In  point  of  fact,  there 
is  legal  evidence  to  the  same  effect;  for,  as  will  presently  be 
seen,  the  law  of  murder  in  the  case  of  Cain  is  shown  by  the 
comparative  evidence  to  be  very  early.  I  shall  return  to  the 
question  of  dating  hereafter. 

3.    It  follows,  from  what  has  been  said,  that  it  is  no  suf- 
ficient justification  of  the  higher  critical  procedure  to  say  that 
the  analytic  process  "  moves  on  "  to  cases  where  diversity  of 
'  Archlv  fiir  Religlonswissenschaft,  vol.  x.   (1907)   p.  347. 


The  Sivansong  of  the  Wellhausen  School  65 

authorship  is  "  less  certain;'  The  critical  theory  should  rather 
be  likened  to  a  string-  of  beads.  If  the  string  be  snapped  in 
not  more  than  one  hundred  and  eighty-nine  places  the  beads 
will  fall.  Many  of  them  may  be  lost  or  destroyed:  some  may 
be  strung  together  with  other  beads  on  a  fresh  thread,  and 
formed  into  a  gewgaw  of  entirely  different  pattern,  purpose, 
and  appearance  from  the  original  string. 

4.  "  It  is  surely  evident  that  when  the  composition  of 
sources  is  once  established,  the  slightest  differences  of  repre- 
sentation or  language  assume  a  significance  which  they  might 
not  have  apart  from  that  presumption."  The  chief  part  of 
this  sentence  has  been  answered  in  the  foregoing  paragraphs. 
It  is,  however,  necessary  to  point  out  that  the  fallacies  already 
exposed  are  here  admitted  to  import  into  "  the  slightest  dif- 
ferences of  representation  ''  a  "  significance  which  they  might 
not  have  apart  from  that  presumption."  In  other  words  the 
significance  goes  by  the  board  with  the  presumption. 

It  is  at  this  point  that  Dr.  Skinner's  claim  as  to  the  success 
of  his  analysis  (omitted  from  the  preceding  discussion  of  the 
Divine  appellations)   should  be  quoted. 

"  One  has  but  to  read  consecutively  the  first  three  chapters  of 
Genesis,  and  observe  how  the  sudden  change  in  the  divine  name 
coincides  with  a  new  vocabulary,  representation,  and  spiritual  at- 
mosphere, in  order  to  feel  how  paltry  all  such  artificial  explana- 
tions are  in  comparison  with  the  hypothesis  that  the  names  are 
distinctive  of  different  documents.  The  experience  repeats  itself, 
not  perhaps  quite  so  convincingly,  again  and  again  throughout  the 
book ;  and  though  there  are  cases  where  the  change  of  manner  is 
not  obvious,  still  the  theory  is  vindicated  in  a  sufiicient  number  of 
instances  to  be  worth  carrying  through,  even  at  the  expense  of  a 
somewhat  complicated  analysis,  and  a  very  few  demands  on  the 
services  of  a  redactor  to  resolve  isolated  problems"   (p.  xxxvi). 

It  is  possible  to  test  this  theory  in  many  different  ways. 

(1)  The  involuntary  admissions  of  Dr.  Skinner  himself  may 

be  quoted.     (2)  His  clues  may  be  taken  singly  and  it  may  be 


66  Pentatcuchal  Studies 

shown  how  he  has  to  abandon  them  one  after  another  and 
introduce  the  wildest  hypotheses  in  order  to  get  through  at 
all.  (3)  The  narrative  may  be  examined  to  see  whether  the 
theory  is  probable  or  tears  asunder  what  cannot  be  separated. 
(4)  The  evidence  of  the  Versions  which  so  often  show  the 
true  origin  of  the  phenomena  sought  to  be  explained  by  the 
documentary  theory  may  be  adduced  with  the  result  that  pas- 
sages supposed  to  belong  to  the  earliest  sources  are  seen  to 
be  the  additions  of  late  glossators  and  the  unglossed  text  ap- 
pears to  be  unitary.  (5)  The  historical  and  comparative  evi- 
dence v.-hich  demolishes  the  theory  may  be  adduced. 

Other  tests  could  be  suggested :  but  this  is  an  article,  not  a 
treatise,  and  it  is  impossible  to  cover  all  the  ground.  It  will  be 
sufficient  to  give  some  samples  of  each  of  these  methods  with 
references  which  will  enable  the  reafler  to  supplement  this  arti- 
cle for  himself  —  especially  as  this  very  claim  of  Dr.  Skin- 
ner's contains  the  admissions  that  "  there  are  cases  where  the 
change  of  manner  is  not  obvious,"  that  the  documentary 
"  experience  "  which  "  repeats  itself  "  does  so  "  not  perhaps 
quite  so  convincingly,"  and  that  the  analysis  is  "  somewhat 
complicated." 

At  this  point  it  is  necessary  to  advert  to  Dr.  Skinner's  treat- 
ment of  Dr.  Orr.  The  latter's  fascinating  volume  on  "  The 
Problem  of  the  Old  Testament  "  is  well  known.  Dr.  Skinner 
has  read  it:  and  it  is  difficult  to  think  that  he  has  not  been 
considerably  influenced  by  it  in  the  admissions  he  is  driven  to 
make  about  J  and  E,  but  he  objects  to  Dr.  Orr's  hypothesis. 
My  own  view  is  that  Dr.  Orr's  book  points  to  a  far  more  con- 
servative position  than  that  of  its  author  as  the  only  one  tena- 
ble. I  do  not  agree  with  him  in  accepting  the  documentary 
theory  at  all,  nor  can  I  concur  in  his  dating.  In  fact,  his  work 
is  very  valuable ;  but  to  my  mind  it  attains  its  full  force  only 


The  Swansong  of  the  Wellhanscn  School  67 

when  it  is  coupled  with  the  tests  (4)  and  (5)  above,  which 
lead  to  an  entirely  different  solution.  Hence  in  so  far  as  Dr. 
Skinner  criticizes  Dr.  Orr's  documentary  theory  I  agree  with 
him :  in  so  far  as  he  refuses  to  accept  Dr.  Orr's  view  of  the 
futility  of  the  JE  analysis  I  disagree  with  him  and  clinch  the 
matter  with  my  own  new  materials. 

I  begin  then  with  Dr.  Skinner's  independent  admissions 
about  J  and  E: — 

"  "When  we  compare  the  two  documents,  the  first  thing  that 
strikes  us  is  their  close  correspondence  in  outline  and  contents. 
The  only  important  difference  is  that  E's  narrative  does  not  seem 
to  have  embraced  the  primitive  period,  but  to  have  commenced 
with  Abraham.  But  from  the  point  where  E  strikes  into  the  cur- 
rent of  the  history,  there  are  few  incidents  in  the  one  document  to 
which  the  other  does  not  contain  a  parallel.  What  is  much  more 
remarkable,  and  indeed  surprising,  is  that  the  manner  of  narration 
changes  in  the  two  documents  pari  passu.  Thus  the  transition 
from  the  loose  connection  of  the  Abraham  legends  to  the  more 
consecutive  biography  of  Jacob,  and  then  to  the  artistic  unity  of 
the  Joseph  stories,  is  equally  noticeable  in  J  and  in  E.  It  is  this 
extraordinarily  close  parallelism,  both  in  matter  and  form,  which 
proves  that  both  documents  drew  from  a  common  body  of  tradi- 
tion, and  even  suggests  that  that  tradition  had  already  been  partly 
reduced  to  writing"   (pp.  xliiif.). 

"  J  presents,  on  the  whole,  a  more  uniform  literary  texture  than 
E.  It  is  generally  allowed  to  contain  the  best  examples  of  pure 
narrative  style  in  the  O'.  T. ;  and  in  Genesis  it  rarely,  if  ever,  falls 
below  the  highest  level.  But  while  E  hardly  attains  the  same  per- 
fection of  form,  there  are  whole  passages,  especially  in  the  more 
ample  narratives,  in  which  it  is  difficult  to  assign  to  the  one  a 
superiority  over  the  other.  J  excels  in  picturesque  'objectivity'  of 
description.  —  in  the  power  to  paint  a  scene  with  few  strokes,  and 
in  the  delineation  of  life  and  character:  his  dialogues,  in  par- 
ticular, are  inimitable  'for  the  delicacy  and  truthfulness  with 
which  character  and  emotions  find  expression  in  them '  (cf.  Gen. 
xliv  18  ff.).  E,  on  the  other  hand,  frequently  strikes  a  deeper  vein 
of  subjective  feeling,  especially  of  pathos;  as  in  the  account  of 
Isaac's  sacrifice  (xxii),  of  the  expulsion  of  Hagar  (xxi  8ff.),  the 
dismay  of  Isaac  and  the  tears  of  Esau  on  the  discovery  of  Jacob's 
fraud  (xxvii  35  ff.),  Jacob's  lifelong  grief  for  Rachel  (xlviii  7), 
or  his  tenderness  towards  Joseph's  children    (xlviii  14).     But  here 


68  Pcntatcuchal  Studies 

again  no  absolute  distinction  can  be  drawn;  in  the  history  of  Jo- 
seph, e.g.,  the  vein  of  pathos  is  perhaps  more  marked  in  J  than  in 
E.  Where  parallels  are  sufficiently  distinct  to  show  a  tendency,  it 
is  found  in  several  instances  that  J's  objectivity  of  treatment  has 
succeeded  in  preserving  the  archaic  spirit  of  a  legend  which  in  E 
is  transformed  by  the  more  refined  sentiment  of  a  later  age.  The 
best  example  is  J's  picture  of  Hagar,  the  intractable,  indomitable 
Bedawi  woman  (ch.  xvi),  as  contrasted  with  E's  modernized  ver- 
sion of  the  incident  (xxi  8ff.),  with  its  affecting  picture  of  the 
mother  and  child  all  but  perishing  in  the  desert.  So  again,  E  (ch. 
xx)  introduces  an  extenuation  of  Abraham's  falsehood  about  his 
wife  which  is  absent  from  the  older  narrative  of  J   (xii  10  ff.). 

"  It  is  not  surprising,  considering  the  immense  variety  of  material 
comprised  in  both  documents,  that  the  palpable  literary  differences 
reduce  themselves  for  the  most  part  to  a  preference  for  particular 
phrases  and  turns  of  expression  in  the  one  recension  or  the  other" 
(pp.  xlviif.).^ 

"The  redactors  have  done  their  work  (in  Genesis)  with  consum- 
mate skill  and  care,  and  have  produced  a  consecutive  narrative 
whose  strands  it  is  often  difficult  to  unravel"   (p.  Ivi). 

Certainly  these  passages  are  remarkable.  Dr.  Skinner  is 
so  impressed  with  the  close  correspondence  of  his  two  suppo- 
sititious documents  that  he  is  driven  to  suggest  that  both  drew 
on  a  tradition  that  "  had  already  been  partly  reduced  to 
writing."     I  will  next  quote  his  reply  to  Dr.  Orr : — 

"  What  reasons,  then,  hinder  us  from  deserting  the  critical  view, 
and  coming  over  to  the  side  of  Dr.  Orr?  In  the  first  place,  the  dif- 
ference between  J  and  E  is  twt  confined  to  the  divine  names.  The 
linguistic  evidence  is  very  much  clearer  than  Dr.  Orr  represents ; ' 
and  differences  of  conception,  though  slight,  are  real.  ...  In  the 
second  place,  J  and  E  consist  largely  of  duplicate  narratives  of  the 
same  event.  It  is  true,  this  argument  is  lost  on  Dr.  Orr,  who  has 
no  difficulty   in  conceiving  that  Abraham   twice  told  the   same   lie 

*  In  other  words,  no  criterion  can  be  laid  down  which  Dr.  Skin- 
ner does  not  immediately  contradict,  as  in  the  foregoing  extracts. 
As  to  the  supposed  superior  antiquity  of  J,  he  is  driven  to  admit 
(on  p.  liii)  that  "E  has  occasionally  preserved  the  more  ancient 
form  of  the  tradition."  Other  critics  hold  E  to  be  the  older  docu- 
ment. 

'  Nevertheless,  I  have  not  observed  that  Dr.  Skinner  has  answered 
a  single  point  made  by  Dr.  Orr  as  to  the  linguistic  evidence. 


The  Szuansong  of  the  IVellhausen  School  69 

about  his  wife,  and  tliat  his  son  Isaac  followed  his  example,  with 
very  similar  results  in  the  three  cases"   (p.  xli). 

In  reply,  attention  should  be  drawn  to  the  following  facts: 
(a)  Dr.  Skinner  has  made  no  attempt  to  meet  in  detail  Dr. 
Orr's  examination  of  the  linguistic  evidence  and  the  differ- 
ences of  conception.  For  example,  Dr.  Orr's  discussion  on 
pages  233  ff.  of  his  "  Problem  "  conclusively  breaks  down  Dr. 
Skinner's  allegations  as  to  dreams  and  night  visions  in  E  rep- 
resenting a  more  advanced  stage  of  theological  reflection 
(p.  1).  Or,  again,  compare  Dr.  Skinner's  statement  as  to 
the  "national  feeling"  in  both  sources  (p.  1)  with  Orr's  (pp. 
210  f.).  (&)  The  textual  evidence,  in  fact,  disposes  of  the 
main  differences  of  conception,  and  shows  how  the  present 
troubles  have  arisen.  Here  I  may  refer  to  my  articles  on  Jo- 
seph.^ {c)  With  regard  to  duplicate  narratives,  it  should 
first  be  noted  that  Dr.  Skinner  has  misunderstood  Dr.  Orr,  as 
the  following  passage  shows :  "  This  suggests,  lastly,  that 
even  were  the  similarity  of  incidents  as  clear  as  is  alleged,  it 
would  not  necessarily  prove  different  authorship.  The  same 
author  might  find  varying  narratives  in  the  traditions  or 
sources  from  which  he  drew,  and  might  himself  reproduce 
them  in  his  history."  (Problem,  p.  237.)  (d)  Moreover  the 
argument  is  extraordinarily  subjective.  As  I  have  pointed  out 
elsewhere,  the  critics  first  deny  the  two  water  stories  (Ex.  xvii. 
and  Num.  xx.)  to  a  single  author,  and  then  proceed  to  assign 
two  such  stories  each  to  J,  E,  and  perhaps  also  P.-  In  the 
case  of  some  of  the  Genesis  stories  it  will  appear,  to  most 
minds,  that  the  supposed  duplicates  are  really  narratives  of 

^  Supra,  Nos.  6  and  7. 

=  See  Essays,  pp.  104  f.  The  expression  "  and  Meribah "  in  Ex- 
odus xvii.  7  is  missing  in  the  Vulgate,  and  is  clearly  a  gloss.  Com- 
pare Deuteronomy  ix.  22;  xxxiii.  8,  where  the  place  is  called  Mas- 
sah  only. 


70  Pentatciichal  Studies 

different  events :  but,  however  that  may  be,  I  can  see  no  rea- 
son for  supposing  that  the  collection  of  traditions  was  made 
first  by  two  schools  of  writers  (J  and  E)  independently,  then 
by  a  redactor  of  JE,  then  by  a  P  school,  and  lastly  by  a  re- 
dactor who  combined  all  these.  It  must  be  remembered  that 
for  all  this  there  is  not  a  scintilla  of  evidence. 

To  come  back  to  Dr.  Skinner's  admissions.  When  we  turn 
to  the  detailed  discussion  in  the  Commentary,  matters  are  no 
better.  After  prolonged  consideration.  Dr.  Skinner  divides 
Genesis  xxxiv.  into  two  sources,  which  in  utter  perplexity  he 
calls  Jx  and  Ex  adding  (p.  418),  "  This  seems  to  me  the  best 
solution,  though  it  leaves  the  dual  recension,  the  amalgama- 
tion, and  the  Priestly  redaction  unexplained  riddles  " !  On 
page  456,  chapter  xxxix.,  "  with  the  exception  of  a  harmonis- 
ing gloss  ....  and  a  sprinkling  of  E  variants,"  goes  to  J  ;  but 
on  the  next  page  we  read  "  This  conclusion  is  partly  confirmed 
by  the  literary  phenomena  [which  are  then  cited].  It  is  some- 
what disconcerting  to  find  that  none  of  these  occur  in  the  cen- 
tral section,  7-20;  and  Wellhausen  positively  assigns  6-19  to 
E."  The  phrases  supposed  to  support  this  are  quoted,  and 
Dr.  Skinner  proceeds :  "  These  are  not  decisive,  and  on  the 
whole  the  material  argument  must  be  held  to  outweigh  the 
dubious  linguistic  evidence,"  and  so  on.  On  page  465,  we 
learn  of  another  passage  that  "  a  satisfactory  analysis  cannot 
be  given."  On  page  486  (chap,  xlv.),  "  The  sources,  E  and  J, 
are  here  so  intimately  blended  that  a  complete  analysis  is  im- 
possible," etc.  Perhaps  it  will  be  sufficient  on  this  part  of 
the  case  to  close  with  some  admissions  as  to  the  Joseph  story 
as  a  whole.  "  From  the  other  patriarchal  biographies  it  is 
distinguished  first  of  all  by  the  dramatic  unity  of  a  clearly 
conceived  'plot '.  .  .  .  To  this  higher  unity  everything  is  sub- 
ordinated;  the  separate  scenes  and  incidents  merge  natufally 


The  Swansong  of  the  WeUhauscn  School  71 

into  the  main  stream  of  the  narrative,  each  representing  a  step 
in  the  development  of  the  theme.  .  .  .  The  close  parallelism  of 
J  and  E,  together  with  the  fact  that  the  literary  features 
enumerated  above  are  shared  by  both,  show  that  it  had  taken 
shape  before  it  came  into  the  hands  of '  these  writers,  and 
strongly  suggest  that  it  must  have,  existed  in  written  form  " 
(p.  440).  When  to  this  are  added  the  admissions  cited  above, 
the  breakdown  of  the  Divine  appellations,  the  breakdown  (as 
will  be  shown  hereafter)  of  the  main  clue  for  this  section 
(Jacob  and  Israel),  and  the  fact  that  the  textual  evidence,  as 
shown  in  the  preceding  studies,  not  merely  destroys  the  de- 
tails of  the  analysis  but  also  explains  the  real  origin  of  the 
difficulties  of  the  present  text;,  it  will  be  seen  that  the  admis- 
sion of  the  unity  of  the  Joseph  story  is  merely  a  question  of 
time.  //  must  be  remembered  that  this  is  the  locus  classicus 
for  the  JE  analysis,  zuhich  falls  zvith  the  establishment  of  the 
unity  of  this  section  and  the  abandonment  of  the  clue  from 
the  Divine  appellations. 

Next  I  turn  to  examine  some  of  the  clues.  It  may  be  con- 
venient to  begin  with  that  which  is  most  important  for  the 
Joseph  story,  and  collect  some  of  Dr.  Skinner's  observations 
on  the  subject.  On  page  xlix  we  read,  "  For  the  name  Jacob, 
J  substitutes  Israel  after  xxxv  22  (except  xlvi  5b)  ;  E  consist- 
ently uses  Jacob  (except  xlvi  2,  xlviii  8,  11,  21  [1  25?]."  It 
will  seem  to  most  people  that  there  is  nothing  very  "  consist- 
ent "  about  a  practice  to  which  there  are  admittedly  four  or 
five  exceptions  in  a  very  few  chapters,  but  this  is  only  the 
beginning  of  our  experiences.  On  pages  438  f.,  we  are  told, 
"  With  regard  to  the  composition  of  J  and  E,  the  most  im- 
portant fact  is  that  the  clue  to  authorship  supplied  by  the 
divine  names  almost  entirely  fails  us,  and  is  replaced  by  the 
distinction  between  Israel  and  Jacob  which  as  names  of  the 


72    ■  Pentatciichal  Studies 

patriarch  are  characteristic  of  J  and  E  respectively  (ex- 
ceptions are  xlvi  2,  xlviii  8,  11,  21,  [1  25?];  xlvi  5b."  I 
agree  that  this  "  replaces  "  the  distinction  between  the  di- 
vine appellations,  but  I  go  further  and  say  that  Dr.  Skin- 
ner's statement  is  a  good  deal  truer  than  he  ever  imagined; 
for  we  have  here  again  the  same  self-contradictions,  the  same 
improbable  divisions,  the  same  uncertain  attitude  towards  the 
textual  evidence.  On  page  423,  in  the  small  print  at  the  top, 
the  only  section  in  chapter  xxxv.  which  can  be  assigned 
"  purely  "  to  J  is  21,  22a,  on  the  ground  that  "  Israel  "  occurs 
twice,  but  at  the  bottom  of  the  same  page  Dr.  Skinner  notes 
in  his  curious  way  that  in  verse  5  the  LXX  ^  has  "  Israel  "  for 
the  Hebrew  "  Jacob."  On  page  427,  in  the  small-print  note 
on  22a,  "  Israel,"  we  read,  "  The  name,  instead  of  Jacob,  is 
from  this  point  onwards  a  fairly  reliable  criterion  of  the  doc- 
ument J  in  Genesis."  Note  that  it  is  only  "  fram  this  point 
onwards,"  and,  even  so,  it  has  sunk  to  the  level  of  "  a  fairly 
reliable  criterion."  On  page  474  (chap,  xlii.),  in  the  small 
print  at  the  top,  "  Jacob  "  is  quoted  to  prove  E's  authorship  of 
verses  29  and  36,  but  at  the  bottom  it  is  noted  that  the  Septu- 
agint  differs  from  the  Massoretic  text  in  omitting  this  very 
word  in  verses  1  and  4.  On  page  479,  "  the  name  Israel  "  in 
xliii.  6,  8,  11,  is  a  "positive  point  of  contact  with  J."  On 
page  486,  E  appears  from  (inter  alia)  "  Jacob  "  in  xlv.  25, 
while  "  Israel  "  in  verse  28  is  an  "  indubitable  trace  "  of  J. 
Our  "  fairly  reliable  criterion  "  is  obviously  looking  up  in  the 
world.  On  page  491,  at  the  top  of  the  page,  it  is  still  in  good 
credit:  "  Israel  "  in  xlvi.  29,  30,  helps  to  prove  "  a  continuous 
J  narrative,"  in  xlvi.  la  it  vouches  for  J,  while  "  Jacob  "  in 
verses  2,  5a,  evidences  E.    But  alas  for  fleeting  glories !    The 

'  I  believe  that  when  Dr.  Skinner  speaks  of  the  LXX  without  fur- 
ther details,  he  only  means  the  text  of  the  Cambridge  Septuagint 


The  Sivansong  of  the  Wellhausen  School  73 

bottom  of  the  page  witnesses  a  sad  reversal  of  its  fine  position, 
for  it  becomes  necessary  to  comment  on  the  word  "  Israel " 
in  verse  2,  and  Dr.  Skinner  is  reduced  to  writing,  "  The  word 
has  crept  in  from  verse  1  through  an  inadvertence  of  the  re- 
dactor or  a  later  scribe  " !  On  page  492,  Dr.  Skinner  chron- 
icles the  fact  that  the  LXX  omits  "  Jacob "  on  its  second 
occurrence  in  verse  5  (where  it  had  on  the  preceding  page 
proved  E's  authorship).  On  page  501,  in  the  small-print  note 
on  verse  27,  we  are  told  that  "  the  verse  is  usually  divided 
between  J  and  P;  but  h^'\^''  is  no  sure  sign  of  J,  since  it  de- 
notes the  nation."  On  pages  502,  503,  there  is  some  more 
shuffling,  and  in  the  small-print  note  on  xlviii.  2b  (pp.  503- 
504)  the  clue  is  abandoned :  "  2b  is  usually  assigned  to  J  be- 
cause of  Israel.  But  the  clause  comes  very  naturally  after 
2a;  and  as  there  are  three  other  cases  of  confusion  between 
the  two  names  in  this  chapter  (8,  11,  21),  the  name  is  not  de- 
cisive." It  seems  unnecessary  to  follow  Dr.  Skinner  further 
on  this  point.  This  clue,  like  others,  is  followed  and  aban- 
doned when  convenient.  The  whole  analysis  is  a  mass  of  the 
most  arbitrary  subjectivity.  For  the  rest  the  textual  evidence 
which  completely  disposes  of  it  will  be  found  in  "  The  Answer 
of  Textual  Criticism  to  the  Higher  Criticism  of  the  Story  of 
Joseph."  ^ 

To  take  some  more  examples :  On  xii.  5  we  are  told  in  Ger- 
man —  probably  to  make  it  more  impressive  —  that  "  land  of 
Canaan  "  is  "  an  almost  certain  mark  of  P  "  (p.  245)  ;  but  on 
page  474  we  hear  (in  the  vernacular)  that  "A  peculiar  feature 
of  this  and  the  following  chapters  is  the  name  '  land  of 
Canaan,'  which  is  elsewhere  in  Genesis  characteristic  of  P. 
From  this  and  some  similar  phenomena,  Giesebrecht  and  oth- 
ers had  inferred  a  Priestly  redaction  of  the  Joseph  pericope ; 
^  Supra,  pp.  35-?)S. 


74  Pcniatcuchal  Studies 

but  the  usage  may  be  due  to  the  constant  and  unavoidable 
antithesis  between  Canaan  and  Egypt,"  and  we  are  further 
referred  to  page  438.  Here  we  learn,  with  regard  to  this 
hypothesis  of  a  priestly  redaction,  that  "  the  cases  in  point 
have  been  examined  by  Kuenen,  who  rightly  concludes  that 
they  are  too  few  in  number  to  bear  out  the  theory  of  system- 
atic Priestly  redaction.'"  Needless  to  say,  the  textual  evidence 
on  this  phrase  has  not  been  considered.  Again,  when  the  lists  of 
words  are  critically  examined,  they  yield  very  curious  results. 
Thus,  to  take  merely  Dr.  Skinner's  admissions  in  the  lists 
themselves,  we  see  the  following  on  page  xlix :  Of  J  one  ex- 
pression is  found  "  also  in  P,"  another  in  xlii.  1  "  E?,"  a  third 
nns'j*  (of  which  more  hereafter)  in  "  xx  14,  xxx  18  R:  also 
common  in  P,"  a  fourth  occurs  "  in  E  and  P  once  each/'  a 
fifth  is  found  "  in  J  about  40  times,  in  E  about  6  times  (in 
Gen.)."  Clue  after  clue  has  to  be  abandoned,  and  the  effect 
produced  by  the  successive  breakdowns  of  all  these  unsound 
arguments  is  cumulative.  E's  main  list  consists  of  five  phrases 
and  idioms,  but  then  "  a  number  of  rare  or  archaic  words  or 
phrases,"  occurring  sometimes  only  once  each  in  the  ivholc 
Pentateuch,  are  assigned  to  him  to  help  him  out.  This  sort  of 
learned  trifling  is  hardly  likely  to  have  influence  with  any  sen- 
sible man. 

As  a  final  example,  I  take  the  stylistic  argument  on  page 
315  dealing  with  chapter  xx.,  "  the  first  continuous  excerpt 
from  E."  First,  of  course,  comes  Elohim,  verse  18,  containing 
the  Tetragrammaton,  being  turned  into  a  gloss,  though  the 
narrative  is  incomprehensible  without  it.  After  what  has 
already  been  said  of  this  clue,  it  is  only  necessary  to  add 
that  in  verse  4  14  Hebrew  MSS.  have  the  Tetragrammaton. 
Then  nrsN*  for  "maid-servant"  (Jnn^e),  but  this  breaks 
down  because  the  latter  word  occurs  in  verse  14.  Therefore  in 


The  Szvansong  of  the  Wellhanscn  School  75 

that  verse  another  gloss  has  to  be  postulated,  "  this  being  the 
only  instance  of  nnsL*'  in  an  E  context."  But  that  is  barely 
true.  On  page  389,  we  read  (xxx.),  "  18a/3  while  correctly 
expressing  the  idea  of  E,  contains  the  word  nna:;'  which  E 
avoids ;  and  is  therefore  probably  redactional."  The  next 
proof  is  "3253  {]2b),  verse  5  ";  but  in  Exodus  xiv.  5, J  uses  y^h- 
That  exhausts  the  more  important  stylistic  clues,  but  we  are 
referred  to  the  notes  on  four  other  words  and  phrases.  Of 
one  of  these,  we  read  "  only  here  in  Hexateuch ;  E  is  addicted 
to  rare  expressions."  Of  the  second,  "  '  said  regarding '  is 
rare :  2  Kings  xix  32,  Jer.  xxii  18,  xxvii  19 ;  "  of  the  third 
"  = 'permit'  xxxi  7,  Nu.  xx  21,  xxi  23,  xxii  13  (E), 
Ex.  xii  23  (J),  iii  19  (R),  Dt.  xviii  14,  Jos.  x  19  (D)  :  " 
of  the  fourth  "  as  xviii  13,  Nu.  xxii  37 ;  but  cf  Jos.  vii 
20.  These  are  all  the  occurrences  in  Hexateuch."  Joshua 
vii.  20  is  given  to  J  in  the  Oxford  Hexateuch.  Thus  two  of 
the  four  occur  nowhere  else  in  the  Hexateuch,  and  the  others 
are  not  exclusively  E.  Now  I  ask :  Could  a  single  one  of  those 
clues  have  a  scintilla  of  probative  force  for  any  impartial 
mind? 

These  "  stylistic  peculiarities  "  are  reinforced  (?)  by  oth- 
ers. "  The  appearing  of  God  in  a  dream  is  characteristic  of 
E."  I  have  already  referred  to  Dr.  Orr's  refutation  of  this 
allegation,  and  Dr.  Skinner's  failure  to  meet  it.  "And  the  con- 
ception of  Abraham  as  a  prophet  (7)  is  at  least  foreign  to  the 
original  J  (but  see  on  xv  1)."  I  will  just  put  by  the  side  of 
that  Dr.  Skinner's  statement  on  page  1 :  "  Nor  does  the  fact 
that  Abraham,  as  a  man  of  God,  is  called  Nahi  ["  prophet "] 
(xx  7,  cf  Dt.  xxxiv  10)  necessarily  imply  that  the  figure  of 
an  Amos  or  an  Isaiah  was  before  the  mind  of  the  writers." 
And  on  xv.  1  we  read  of  the  Hebrew  word  for  "  vision  " : 
"  Only  Nu.  xxiv  4,  16,  Ezk.  xiii  7.     The  word  is  thus  not  at 


76  Pentatcuchal  Studies 

all  characteristic  of  E,  though  the  idea  of  revelation  through 
dreams  and  visions  undoubtedly  is  "  (p.  278).  I  ask  my  read- 
ers to  turn  to  the  two  verses  in  Numbers  (which  belong  to  J), 
and  say  whether  "  the  idea  of  revelation  through  dreams  and 
visions  "  is  or  is  not  present.  Further  on,  on  "  the  word  of 
the  Lord  came''  (in  this  very  verse),  Dr.  Skinner  writes: 
"  The  conception  of  Abram  as  a  prophet  has  no  parallel  in 
J ;  and  even  E,  though  he  speaks  vaguely  of  Abram  as  a  Nabi 
["prophet"]  (xx  7),  does  not  describe  his  intercourse  with 
God  in  technical  prophetic  phraseology."  That  clue  is  there- 
fore valueless.  Returning  to  chapter  xx.,  we  find  Dr.  Skin- 
ner laying  stress  on  the  fact  that  "  Sarah  is  here  conceived  as 
a  young  woman  capable  of  inspiring  passion  in  the  king." 
That  is  a  good  point  —  the  only  point  he  really  makes :  but  it 
does  not  justify  anything  more  than  the  view  that  this  episode 
is  probably  misplaced ;  while,  as  will  be  seen  hereafter,  there 
is  textual  evidence  against  the  present  chronology  of  Genesis. 
Lastly,  Dr.  Skinner  returns  to  the  Divine  appellations,  and 
says  this  "  is  the  beginning  of  a  section  mainly  Elohistic,  rep- 
resenting a  cycle  of  tradition  belonging  to  the  Negeb  and,  in 
particular,  to  Beersheba."  That  argument  also  falls  with  As- 
truc's  clue.  That  disposes  of  the  case  on  chapter  xx.  It 
must  be  remembered  that  the  effect  produced  by  examining 
the  critical  contentions  is  cumulative.  After  a  century  and  a 
half  of  destructive  work,  these  critics  are  unable  to  produce  a 
single  clue  that  will  bear  examination  to  justify  their  treat- 
ment of  this  chapter ;  and  this  is  merely  typical  of  the  analysis 
in  general. 

I  now  proceed  to  examine  another  argument  in  the  light  of 
two  methods  jointly  —  the  consideration  of  versional  evidence 
and  of  the  argument  from  contexts.   For  this  purpose  it  will  be 


The  Swansong  of  the  JVellhaitscn  School  77 

well  to  take  what  Dr.  Skinner  apparently  regards  as  one  of  the 
strongest  portions  of  his  theory  —  P's  biography  of  Abraham. 
It  is  to  be  remembered  that  this  portion  of  my  discussion  can 
be  supplemented  from  Dr.  Orr's  "  Problem,"  where  numerous 
instances  of  the  context  argument  will  be  found,  and  my  own 
"  Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism,"  as  well  as  from  the  ex- 
amination of  the  story  of  Joseph,  to  which  reference  has  been 
made.     It  must  be  borne  in  mind  in  considering  this  biogra- 
phy, that  Dr.  Skinner  is  arguing  against  the  view  that  P  is  a 
mere  supplement  —  a  view  that  I  do  not  hold,  as  I  reject  in 
toto  the  analysis   into   documents.     He   writes,   "  No  critical 
operation  is  easier  or  more  certain  than  the  separation  of  this 
work,  down  even  to  very  small  fragments,  from  the  context 
in  which  it  is  embedded"  (p.  Ivii).     He  admits  (p.  lix)  that 
■'  in  the  sections  on  Isaac,  Jacob,  and  Joseph,  there  are  un- 
doubtedly omissions  which  we  can  only  supply  from  JE;  and 
if  we  were  to  judge  from  these  parts  alone,  the  supplementary 
theory  would  be  more  plausible  than  it  is.     We  miss,  e.g.,  ac- 
counts of  the  birth  of  Jacob  and  Esau,  of  Jacob's  arrival  in 
Paddan  Aram,  of  his  marriage  to  Leah  and  Rachel,  of  the  birth 
of  Joseph,  of  his  slavery  and  elevation  in  Egypt,  his  recon- 
ciliation with  his  brethren,  and  perhaps  some  other  particu- 
lars."   This  does  not  prevent  Dr.  Skinner,  whose  work  is  one 
mass  of  inconsistencies,  from  writing  three  pages  later :  "  In 
the  history  of  the  patriarchs  there  seems  no  reason  to  suppose 
that  he  [P]  had  any  other  authorities  than  J  and  E.   The  gen- 
eral course  of  events  is  the  same,  and  differences  of  detail  are 
all  explicable  from  the  known  tendencies  of  the  Code."    It  ap- 
pears, then,  that  the  omissions  not  merely  are  such  as  "  zue 
can  only  supply  from  JE,"  but  never  could  have  been  supplied 
in  any  other  way  at  all.     This,  as  usual,  is  supplemented  by 
admissions  in  the  Commentary  (e.g.  pp.  428  f.,  438,  etc.),  but 


78  Pcntatcuchal  Studies 

it   is    with   the    supposed    strength,    not    with    the    admitted 

weakness  of  the  P  theory  that  I  desire  to  deal.     Dr.  Skinner 

writes : — 

" Here   Is   literal   translation  of  the  disjecta  membra  of  P'8 

epitome  of  the  biography  of  Abraham,  with  no  connexions  supplied, 
and  only  one  verse  transposed  (xix  29)  :  xii  4b  'Now  Abram  was 
75  years  old  when  he  went  out  from  Harran.  5  And  Abram  took 
Sarai  his  wife,  and  Lot  his  brother's  son,  and  all  their  possessions 
which  they  had  acquired,  and  all  the  souls  whom  they  had  pro- 
cured; and  they  went  out  to  go  to  the  land  of  Canaan,  and 
they  came  to  the  land  of  Canaan,  xiii  6  And  the  land  could 
not  bear  them  so  that  they  might  dwell  together,  for  their 
possessions  were  great,  and  they  were  not  able  to  dwell  together. 
lib  So  they  separated  from  one  another:  12ab  Abram  dwelt 
in  the  land  of  Canaan,  and  Lot  dwelt  in  the  cities  of  the  Oval. 
xix  29  And  when  God  destroyed  the  cities  of  the  Oval,  God  re- 
membered Abraham,  and  sent  Lot  away  from  the  midst  of  the 
overthrow,  when  he  overthrew  the  cities  in  which  Lot  dwelt. — 
xvi  1  Now  Sarai,  Abram's  wife,  had  borne  him  no  children.  3  So 
Sarai,  Abram's  wife,  took  Hagar  the  Egyptian,  her  maid,  after 
Abram  had  dwelt  ten  years  in  the  land  of  Canaan,  and  gave  her 
to  Abram  her  husband  for  a  wife  to  him.  15  And  Hagar  bore  to 
Abram  a  son,  and  Abram  called  the  name  of  his  son  whom  Hagar 
bore  to  him  Ishmael.  16  And  Abram  was  8G  years  old  when  Hagar 
bore  Ishmael  to  Abram.*  [Then  follows  chap.  xvii.  in  full.] 
.  .  .  The  narrative  is  resumed  in  xxi  lb  [but  Dr.  Skinner  has  to  ex- 
plain the  Tetragrammaton  in  this  verse  as  a  scribal  error,  and  I 
therefore  correct  his  translation  in  this  respect].  'And  God  did  to 
Sarah  as  he  had  spoken,  2b  at  the  appointed  time  which  God  had 
mentioned.  3  And  Abraham  called  the  name  of  his  son  who  was 
born  to  him,  whom  Sarah  bore  to  him,  Isaac.  4  And  Abraham  cir- 
cumcised Isaac  his  son  when  he  was  8  days  old,  as  God  had  com- 
manded him.  And  Abraham  was  100  years  old  when  Isaac  his  son 
was  born  to  him.  xxiii  1  And  the  life  of  Sarah  was  127  years;  2 
And  Sarah  died  in  Kiryath  Arba,  that  is  Hebron,  in  the  land  of 
Canaan.' .  .  .  [Then  chap,  xxiii.  in  full,  followed  by]  '  xxv  7  And 
these  are  the  days  of  the  years  of  the  life  of  Abraham  which  he 
lived:  175  years;  8  and  he  expired.  And  Abraham  died  in  a  good 
old  age,  an  old  man  and  full  [of  years]  and  was  gathered  to  his 
father's  kin.  9  And  his  sons  Isaac  and  Ishmael  buried  him  in  the 
cave  of  Machpelah,  in  the  field  of  Ephron  the  son  of  Zohar,  the 
Hittite,  wliich  is  opposite  Mamre:  10  the  field  which  Abraham 
bought   from   the   sons   of   Heth :   there   was   Abraham   buried,   and 


Tlie  SzvansoHg  of  the  IVcllhaiiscn  School  79 

Sarah  his  wife.  — 11  And  after  the  death  of  Abraham,  God  blessed 
Isaac  his  son.'  [Dr.  Skinner  then  says:]  The  reader  can  judge  for 
himself  whether  a  narrative  so  continuous  as  this,  every  isolated 
sentence  of  which  has  been  detached  from  its  context  by  unmis- 
takable criteria  of  the  style  of  P,  is  likely  to  have  been  produced 
by  the  casual  additions  of  a  mere  supplementer  of  an  older  work  " 
(p.  Iviii). 

I  fancy  that  there  are  a  good  many  other  points  on  this 
curious  production  which  the  reader  can  and  will  judge  for 
himself.  If  from  any  biography  isolated  sentences  are  snipped 
off  relating  to  successive  episodes,  some  measure  of  contin- 
uity must  result.  Take  a  long  life  of  any  modern  statesman, 
cut  out  sentences  relating  to  his  birth,  marriage,  death,  and 
one  or  two  episodes,  print  them  consecutively,  and  you  will 
necessarily  have  a  continuous  narrative  of  a  sort.  But  it  does 
not  follow  that  it  will  be  in  the  slightest  degree  probable  that 
the  continuous  narrative  is  original. 

In  this  case  there  are  three  glaring  incredibilities,  to  start 
with:  (1)  It  is  contrary  to  the  whole  genius  of  Hebrew  lit- 
erature to  compose  such  a  meager,  dry,  desiccated,  colorless 
narrative  as  this.  There  is  nothing  like  it  in  the  Old  Testa- 
m.ent.  (2)  The  supposititious  writer  to  whom  it  is  assigned 
is  supposed  to  be  characterized  by  prolixity  and  redundancy, 
which  makes  the  theory  that  he  of  all  people  should  have  pro- 
duced such  a  composition  still  more  incredible.  (3)  The  omis- 
sions are  such  as  to  make  the  narrative  unintelligible.  For 
example,  "God  ....  sent  Lot  away."  How  or  whither? 
Such  a  statement  cannot  stand  alone.  Nor  does  even  Dr. 
Skinner  suppose  that  it  can,  for  he  writes  of  this  verse  on 
page  310:  "The  dependence  of  P  on  J  is  very  manifest." 
That  of  course  is  fatal  to  his  hypothesis,  for  if  the  dependence 
is  very  manifest,  there  is  no  independent  document  P,  which 
is  what  Dr.  Skinner  undertook  to  prove.  He  cannot  both  eat 
his  cake  and  have  it.     Abram  called  his  son's  name  Ishmael. 


80  Pcntateitclial  Studies 

Why?  No  reason  whatever  appears.  Again,  there  is  a  gap 
as  to  Abraham's  prosperity.  If  "  after  the  death  of  Abraham, 
God  blessed  Isaac  his  son,'"  the  narrative  must  have  explained 
somewhere  that  during  his  lifetime  God  blessed  the  father. 

With  regard  to  the  marks  of  style  by  which  this  strange 
narrative  is  separated,  it  would  of  course  be  possible  to  show 
their  futility  in  detail,  but  after  what  has  already  been  said 
that  is  perhaps  unnecessary.  Our  old  friends  "  Elohim," 
"  land  of  Canaan,"  etc.,  would  come  in  again,  and  they  would 
be  joined  by  a  number  of  auxiliaries  of  the  same  caliber.  I 
turn  to  the  effect  of  this  separation  on  the  general  narrative 
and  to  some  versional  evidence. 

The  result  of  separating  xii.  4b,  5,  from  the  context  is  to 
leave  a  statement  in  verse  6  that  Abram  "  passed  through  the 
land."  This  with  only  the  data  of  J  must  refer  back  to  "  thy 
country,"  but  the  end  of  the  sentence  shows  this  to  be  non- 
sense. Hence  something  in  the  nature  of  the  excised  passage 
must  be  supplied  to  make  J's  narrative  intelligible.  In  the 
next  passage  (xiii.  6)  the  Septuagintal  MSS.  E,  a,  c^,  rightly 
omit  the  words  "  and  they  could  not  dwell  together,"  assigned 
to  J.  Here  again  the  J  context  demands  P  for  its  explanation : 
"And  there  was  a  strife  between  the  herdmen  of  Abram's  cat- 
tle and  the  herdmen  of  Lot's  cattle."  Why?  Obviously  be- 
cause the  land  could  not  suffice  for  both.  The  explanation 
lies  in  P's  "And  the  land  was  not  able  to  bear  them,  that  they 
might  dwell  together:  for  their  substance  was  great."  Then 
comes  xiii.  lib.  On  this.  Dr.  Skinner  admits  "  lib,  in  spite  of 
its  resemblance  to  9a^,  must  be  assigned  to  P,  being  necessary 
to  the  completeness  of  that  account,  and  because  it  disturbs 
the  connexion  of  11a  with  12b /9,"  i.e.  this  verse  is  given  to 
P  not  on  any  evidence,  but  because  of  the  exigencies  of  the 


The  Szvansong  of  the  Wellhausen  School  81 

theory.^  The  section  in  its  original  form  reads  perfectly,  and 
there  is  no  reason  for  tearing  it  asunder.  We  have  already 
seen  that  xix.  29  cannot  stand  alone,  and  need  therefore  not 
linger  over  the  textual  evidence.  Next  comes  xvi.  la.  Its 
severance  leaves  J  to  begin  with  the  impossible  "And  she  had 
a  handmaid."  Who  was  "  she  "  ?  J's  sentence  will  not  read 
without  the  opening.  In  verse  3  the  Vulgate  omits  "  Sarai 
Abram's  wife "  and  also  both  the  other  occurrences  of 
"Abram."   The  best  MS.  of  the  LXX  exhibits  a  text  that  has 

been  glossed,  as  is  proved  by  the  impossible  Xa^ovaa xal 

ehwKev,  The  variants  suggest  that  it  may  originally  have 
read  "And  she  took  Hagar  the  Egyptian,  her  handmaid,  and 
gave  her  to  her  husband  to  be  his  wife."  This,  supported  as 
it  is  in  part  by  the  Vulgate,  appears  to  me  to  be  correct.  It  is 
important  to  notice  that  the  schematic  chronology  "  after 
Abram  had  dwelt  ten  years  in  the  land  of  Canaan  "  is  un- 
known to  this  text.-  The  marks  of  P's  style  are,  in  fact,  the 
work  of  glossators,  as  in  so  many  other  cases.  Next,  the  re- 
moval of  xvi.  15,  16,  leaves  Ishmael  unborn  in  JE,  where  he 
makes  an  unexpected  appearance  in  xxi.  9.  But  here  again 
the  textual  evidence  is  very  important.  The  two  MSS.  (d,  p) 
that  omitted  the  previous  chronological  notice  in  xvi.  3  also 
omit  the  zvhole  of  verse  16.  Other  Septuagintal  variants  here 
recorded  in  the  larger  Cambridge  Septuagint  point  to  other 
chronology.     As  to  verse  15,  the  Vulgate  reads  "And  Hagar 

*  Consequently  Dr.  Skinner's  allegation  that  "  every  isolated  sen- 
tence has  been  detached  from  its  context  by  unmistakable  criteria 
of  the  style  of  P  "  cannot  be  supported. 

'  How  important  the  chronological  scheme  is  to  the  P  analysis 
may  be  seen  on  page  Ixii,  where  Dr.  Skinner  writes  (after  the  ad- 
mission quoted  before  as  to  the  dependence  on  J  and  E)  :  "But 
the  important  facts  are  that  nearly  the  whole  of  the  history,  both 
primitive  and  patriarchal,  is  reduced  to  a  meagre  summary,  xoith 
little  save  chronological  sigmfico/nce,"  etc.   (my  italics). 


82  Pentateiichal  Studies 

bare  Abram  a  son :  and  he  called  his  name  Ishmael."  Its 
omissions  are  confirmed  by  Septuagintal  MSS.  Again,  in 
xvii.  there  are  significant  variations  —  especially  in  the  age  of 
Ishmael  (ver.  25),  who,  according  to  another  reading,  was 
three,  not  thirteen,  years  old  (compare  chap.  xxi.  14,  15,  18), 
but  it  is  impossible,  for  reasons  of  space,  to  treat  of  this  chap- 
ter now,  and  we  come  to  xxi.  lb.  The  Septuagintal  MS.  n 
omits  this  half-verse,  probably  rightly.  The  Vulgate  cuts  it 
down  to  the  words  "  and  did  as  he  had  spoken,"  which,  how- 
ever, may  be  a  paraphrase.  Neither  of  these  texts  will  suit 
Dr.  Skinner.  In  2b  "  at  the  set  time  "  is  missing  in  two  Sep- 
tuagintal MSS.,  and  the  LXX  substitutes  the  Tetragramma- 
ton  for  "  God."  Verse  3  again  is  omitted  altogether  by  one 
Septuagintal  MS.  —  possibly  by  accident  —  and  is  in  any 
case  heavily  glossed,  as  the  other  variants  show.  It  is  per- 
haps unnecessary  to  continue  these  somewhat  dry  details.  It 
is  of  course  quite  possible  to  continue  the  refutation,  but  these 
samples  are  sufficient  to  show  what  can  be  done.  No  textual 
critic  who  examines  these  instances  carefully  can  doubt  that 
Dr.  Skinner's  method  is  radically  unsound.^ 

Perhaps  it  may  be  said  that  I  am  merely  substituting  one 
set  of  hypotheses  for  another.  That  charge  would  be  quite 
unfair,  for  it  would  overlook  the  important  fact  that  I  am 
careful  to  follow  the  evidence.  The  Vulgate  is  a  well-known 
translation  of  the  Bible  that  to  this  day  possesses  great  author- 
ity.    So  is  the  Septuagint.     But  J  and  E  and  P  and  D  are 

*The  facts  stated  above  respecting  variants  to  tlie  chronological 
notices  are  of  great  importance.  It  turns  out  that  the  extraordi- 
nary chronological  embarrassments  of  Genesis  are  in  part  due  to 
the  work  of  a  late  annotator.  See  No.  4.  supra.  For  the  present 
purpose,  however,  it  is  to  be  noted  that  these  readings  are  of  vital 
consequence,  not  merely  to  the  question  of  the  composition  of  Gene- 
sis, but  also  to  any  estimate  of  its  historical  character,  which  has 
been  attacked  largely  on  chronological  grounds. 


The  Szvansong  of  the  Wellhausen  School  83 

mere  conjectural  figments  of  whom  history  knows  nothing  — 
the  creations  of  some  very  subjective  minds  which  have  ig- 
nored the  available  evidence.  How  subjective  and  arbitrary 
the  whole  theory  is,  may  be  very  strikingly  exemplified  from  a 
statement  that  of  thirty-one  passages  in  JE  in  which  Kraetz- 
schmar  (another  member  of  the  school)  finds  a  particular  idea, 
all  but  three  are  assigned  by  Dr.  Skinner  to  the  Deuter- 
onomic  redaction  (p.  284).  That  is  a  very  interesting  illus- 
tration of  the  way  in  which  the  documentary  theory  feeds  on 
itself. 

I  come  now  to  the  last  test  I  propose  to  apply  —  the  dating. 
We  have  already  seen  that  x.  19  (certainly)  and  ii.  14 
(probably)  contain  passages  that  must  be  pre-Mosaic.  It  is, 
moreover,  to  be  noted  that  no  post-Mosaic  background  can 
possibly  be  found  for  many  of  the  narratives  of  Genesis,  e.g. 
that  of  Noah's  drunkenness  (Skinner,  p.  187).  With  re- 
gard to  Genesis  xiv.,  again.  Dr.  Skinner  has  to  admit  "  some 
traditional  (perhaps  documentary)  material"  (p.  272).  But 
these  considerations  do  not  stand  alone.  After  showing  the 
compatibility  of  the  patriarchal  narratives  with  Oriental 
archaeology,  Dr.  Skinner  adds: — 

"All  this  is  of  the  utmost  value;  and  if  the  patriarchs  lived  in 
this  age,  then  this  is  the  background  against  which  we  have  to  set 
their  biographies.  But  the  real  question  is  whether  there  is  such 
a  correspondence  between  the  biographies  and  their  background 
that  the  former  would  be  unintelligible  if  transplanted  to  other 
and  later  surroundings.  We  should  gladly  welcome  any  evidence 
that  this  is  the  case;  but  it  seems  to  us  that  the  remarkable  thing 
about  these  narratives  is  just  the  absence  of  background  and  their 
general  compatibility  with  the  universal  conditions  of  ancient  East- 
ern life"   (pp.  xvif.). 

That  is  to  say,  that  what  is  now  wanted  is  more  evidence  that 
will  not  fit  any  but  early  conditions.  Some  evidence  of  that 
nature   can   be  provided   by   comparative   jurisprudence.     If 


84  Pcntaicuchal  Studies 

Noah's  law  of  homicide  is  shown  by  the  comparative  method 
to  be  much  earher  than  Exodus  or  Numbers  or  Deuteronomy, 
there  is  an  end  alike  of  the  documentary  hypothesis  which 
would  make  it  a  post-exilic  production  —  though  the  Babylon- 
ian law  of  homicide  was  quite  different  —  and  of  the  histor- 
ical theories  that  depend  on  this  hypothesis.  Such  evidence  is 
in  fact  forthcoming.  I  showed  in  the  London  Churchman  for 
January,  1908,  that  the  legal  evidence  strongly  confirmed  the 
book  of  Genesis.  It  is  impossible  to  transcribe  the  whole  of 
that  article,  but  the  following  passage  may  be  quoted : — 

"But,  then,  may  it  not  be  argued  that  the  legal  conditions  were 
common  to  the  post-Mosaic  period  and  the  patriarchal  age?  Can 
it  not  be  said  that  in  legal  matters  *  the  narratives  are  more  or 
less  coloured  by  the  ideas  of  later  ages?'  The  answer  —  which  is 
important  —  is  in  the  negative.  There  are,  of  course,  no  sufficient 
materials  for  writing  a  history  of  Hebrew  law  in  Biblical  times, 
but,  so  far  as  it  goes,  the  evidence  of  the  Book  of  Genesis  will  not 
fit  in  with  the  critical  theories.  Perhaps  the  most  interesting  case 
Is  the  conveyance  of  the  field  of  Machpelah  to  Abraham,  a  passage 
attributed  by  the  critics  to  the  supposititious  exilic  or  post-exilic 
'P.'  Like  every  other  legal  transaction  in  the  Book  of  Genesis, 
and  unlike  every  Babylonian  legal  tablet,  it  is  conspicuous  for  the 
absence  of  writing.  When  it  is  contrasted  with  the  very  modern 
form  of  conveyance  with  which  we  meet  in  Jeremiah  xxxii.,  it  at 
once  becomes  evident  that  it  represents  a  much  more  primitive 
stage  of  legal  development.  The  instance  is  peculiarly  important, 
because  we  are  asked  to  believe  that  '  P '  (who  is  supposed  to  have 
been  very  much  under  Babylonian  influence)  forged  or  inserted 
the  narrative  of  the  purchase  of  the  cave  of  Machpelah  for  the 
purpose  of  giving  validity  to  the  claim  of  the  Israelites  to  the  land 
of  Canaan.  Now,  had  that  been  so,  it  is  evident  that  a  writer  who, 
according  to  the  critics,  is  distinguished  by  a  peculiarly  lawyer-like 
style  would  never  have  failed  to  mention  every  particular  that  was 
material  to  the  complete  validity  of  the  transaction  according  to 
the  ideas  of  his  own  age.  Nor  can  it  be  said  that  he  would  have 
been  deterred  by  any  scantiness  of  information  or  any  scruples  as 
to  the  truth,  for  ex  hypothesi  he  was  an  admitted  master  of  fiction, 
wholly  devoid  of  anything  that  we  should  regard  as  historical  con- 
science. 

"The   law  of   homicide   also  presents  us   with  some   interesting 


The  Szvansong  of  the  Wellhaiisen  School  85 

testimony.  The  story  of  Cain  the  outlaw,  subject  to  death  at  the 
hands  of  any  man  who  met  him,  reveals  a  legal  institution  w%ll 
known  to  students  of  early  law.^  But  here  it  is  important  to  no- 
tice that  it  brings  us  face  to  face  with  an  earlier  state  of  law  than 
that  postulated  by  the  Mosaic  legislation.  The  blood  feud  is  not 
yet  recognized.  It  is  not  yet  the  duty  of  the  avenger  of  the  blood 
alone  to  exact  retribution  for  the  crime.  The  murderer  is  expelled 
from  the  religious  and  social  community,  and  left  as  an  outcast 
from  the  peace  and  protection  of  the  tribe,  to  encounter  single- 
handed  any  stranger  or  enemy  —  the  terms  are  synonymous  in  early 
times  —  he  may  meet.  Nor  is  the  position  much  better  for  the 
higher  critics  if  we  turn  to  '  P ' :  *  Whoso  sheddeth  the  blood  of 
man,  by  man  shall  his  blood  be  shed.'  That  is  not  the  law  of  '  JE ' 
or  '  D '  or  '  P '  with  the  place  appointed  for  refuge  in  certain  cases 
of  homicide.  The  distinction  between  murder  and  other  classes  of 
homicide  has  not  yet  been  drawn.^ 

"Another  matter  that  has  probably  never  been  considered  by  any 
higher  critic  is  the  history  of  the  patria  potestas  —  the  legal  power 
of  a  father  over  the  children.  As  at  Rome,  so  among  the  ancient  He- 
brews, the  jus  vitae  necisque  was  at  first  quite  unlimited.^  We  have 
several  instances  of  this,  the  most  striking  being  Judah's  conduct 
to  his  daughter-in-law  (xxxviii.  24),  who  had  passed  into  his 
potestas  by  her  marriage,  and  Reuben's  treatment  of  his  children 
(xlii.  3).  It  is  to  be  noted  that  in  neither  case  is  there  any  sug- 
gestion of  a  trial.  The  pater familiws  acts  with  plenary  authority. 
But  in  both  Rome  and  ancient  Israel  this  power  underwent  cur- 
tailment. It  is  true  that  the  power  to  sell  or  pledge  children  en- 
dured to  the  end  of  Old  Testament  times  (Neh.  v.  5),  and  probably 
the  paternal  power  was  in  many  ways  extremely  extensive  till  a 
very    late   period,*   but   the   family   jurisdiction    in   cases  of  wrong- 

^  See  Post,  Grundriss,  vol.  i.  pp.  163-165,  352-354 ;  vol.  ii.  p.  248 ; 
Kulischer,  Zeitschrift  f.  vergl.  Rechtsw.,  vol.  xvii.  p.  3;  Studies  in 
Biblical  Law,  p.  105. 

^  Here,  again,  there  are  universal  parallels  to  the  course  of  legal 
history  as  depicted  in  the  Bible.  The  distinction  is  elsewhere  later 
than  the  treatment  of  all  cases  of  homicide  as  being  on  the  same 
footing.     See  Post,  op.  cil,  vol.  i.  pp.  237  f. ;  vol.  ii.  pp.  333  f. 

^  For  a  succinct  account  of  the  history  of  the  patria  potestas  with 
the  jus  vitae  necisque  at  Rome,  see  Moyle  on  Justinian  Institutes, 
vol.  i.  tit.  9.  The  parallel  is  sometimes  extremely  close.  There  are 
countless  parallels  among  other  peoples. 

*  Especially  in  religious  matters.  The  power  to  sacrifice  chil- 
dren appears  to  have  long  survived. 


86  Pentateuchal  Studies 

doing  had  been  greatly  curtailed  before  the  days  of  Moses.  I  am 
not  thinking  merely  of  the  provisions  of  Deuteronomy  xxi.  18-21. 
If  they  were  all  we  had,  the  critics  might  reasonably  suggest  that 
the  relative  dates  of  *  D '  and  '  JE '  would  account  for  the  alteration. 
But  it  is  clear  that  in  Exodus  xxi.  15,  17,  offences  against  parents 
are  no  longer  regarded  as  matters  for  the  domestic  tribunal,  but 
are  included  within  the  competence  of  the  ordinary  courts  of  elders. 
Times  have  changed  since  the  days  of  Judah  and  Tamar." 

At  this  point  I  leave  the  analysis,  having  tested  it  sufficiently 
for  the  purpose  of  this  article.  It  is  interesting  to  note  that 
in  other  matters  Dr.  Skinner  is  as  unreliable  as  in  the  instances 
we  have  considered.  For  example,  speaking  of  J  and  E,  he 
writes  (p.  1)  :  "A  very  singular  circumstance  is  that  while 
both  frequently  record  the  erection  of  altars  by  the  patriarchs, 
they  are  remarkably  reticent  as  to  the  actual  offering  of  sacri- 
fice: E  refers  to  it  only  twice  (xxii,  xlvi  1),  and  J  never  at 
all  in  the  patriarchal  history  (contrast  iv  3  ff.,  viii  20ff.)." 
With  this  we  may  compare  page  246.  Yet,  in  xxxi.  54,  E 
records  a  sacrifice,  and  we  read  of  "  feasts  "  in  xix.  3 ;  xxi.  8 ; 
xxvi.  30  (the  covenant  of  Isaac  and  Abimelech),  and  xxix. 
22.  Presumably  there  were  sacrifices  in  some  of  these  cases. 
Certainly  Dr.  Skinner,  who  holds  that  profane  slaughter  was 
a  Deuteronomic  innovation,  would  say  so.  Further,  we  are 
repeatedly  told  of  building  altars  and  calling  on  the  name  of 
the  Lord.  Does  Dr.  Skinner  really  suppose  that  this  was  done 
without  sacrifice?  Another  choice  example  of  his  reliability 
is  to  be  found  in  his  note  on  the  word  for  drink-offering  in 
XXXV.  14  (p.  425).  He  writes:  "2  Kings  xvi  13,  15  is  the 
only  other  instance  of  the  word  before  Jeremiah  ....  its  legal- 
isation for  the  worship  of  the  temple  appears  in  Ezk.  xlv  17 
and  P."  As  his  reference  to  Kings  shows  that  it  was  properly 
and  legally  used  in  the  Temple  long  before  the  date  to  which 
he  would  assign  Ezekiel  or  P,  the  note  is  an  admirable  instance 


The  Szvansong  of  the  Wellhaiisen  School  87 

of  the  confusion  in  which  his  theory  involves  him.  Again,  on 
page  420,  in  connection  with  circumcision,  he  speaks  of  "  the 
fact  that  both  J  (Ex.  iv  25)  and  E  (Jos.  v  3  ff.)  record  its  in- 
troduction in  the  age  of  the  Exodus."  It  is  scarcely  necessary 
to  say  that  his  references  do  not  support  his  allegation. 

Finally,  something  must  be  said  on  Dr.  Skinner's  views  of 
the  historical  or  rather  unhistorical  character  of  Genesis.  A 
large  part  of  his  introduction  is  devoted  to  these.  The  fore- 
going discussion  is  fortunately  destructive  of  a  considerable 
portion  of  them.  If  it  be  the  case  that  we  have  in  Genesis  tra- 
ditions that  go  back  at  least  as  far  as  the  time  of  Abraham,  it 
does  not  matter  that  "  the  historical  memory  of  the  pre-Islamic 
Arabs  was  so  defective  that  all  knowledge  of  great  nations 
like  the  Nabataeans  and  Thamudites  had  been  lost  within  two 
or  three  centuries"  (p.  vi).  Or  perhaps  it  would  be  more 
correct  to  say  that  such  parallels  provide  a  foil  to  display  more 
fully  the  superiority  of  Genesis.  They  also  show  how  hard 
the  critics  have  worked  to  discredit  the  Bible.  Again,  it  is 
quite  immaterial  whether  or  not  Genesis  relates  to  "  great  pub- 
lic and  political  events."  An  inquiry  into  the  historical  charac- 
ter of  Genesis  means  an  inquiry  whether  that  book  contains  a 
trustworthy  account  of  actual  happenings.  If  Abraham  lived 
as  is  recorded  in  that  book,  then  the  life  of  Abraham  is  a  his- 
torical fact,  and  it  is  none  the  less  historical  because  Abraham 
was  not  a  king,  a  general,  or  a  politician.  Genesis  does  not 
claim  to  narrate  the  fortunes  of  a  king  Abraham :  it  deals  with 
the  life  story  of  a  man  of  that  name.  All  happenings  consti- 
tute history.  Nor  again  is  there  any  force  in  the  argument 
based  on  chapter  xxiv.  of  which  Dr.  Skinner  writes :  "  We 
may  assume  that  the  scene  at  the  well  of  Harran  actually  took 
place ;  but  that  the  description  owes  its  graphic  power  to  a  re- 
production of  the  exact  words  spoken  and  the  precise  actions 


88  Pentateitchal  Studies 

performed  on  the  occasion  cannot  be  supposed"  (p.  vi).  Of 
course  not:  probably  the  exact  words  spoken  would  have 
brought  the  scene  very  much  less  vividly  before  us  than  the 
actual  narrative  that  we  have.  But  that  does  not  impair  the 
historical  character  of  the  book.  Those  who  wish  to  comment 
on  the  narrative  would  do  well  to  consider  that  a  literary 
artist  seeks  to  convey  a  true  picture  of  the  events  that  form 
his  subject-matter.  Just  as  a  portrait  may  faithfully  represent 
the  original  though  it  differs  in  colors,  size,  etc.,  so  may  a  nar- 
rative of  this  character  reproduce  the  interview  with  more 
fidelity  to  its  true  import  and  spirit  than  a  verbatim  report  of 
the  actual  dialogue.  The  author's  duty  is  to  bring  the  scene 
before  our  eyes  as  graphically  as  possible,  provided  that  in  so 
doing  he  does  not  introduce  any  untrue  element.  He  too  must 
take  account  of  perspective.  To  put  a  narrative  into  literary 
form  is  not  to  falsify  it.  "  The  final  test  ....  is  the  hard 
matter-of-fact  test  of  self-consistency  and  credibility  "  (p.  vi). 
Here  distinctions  must  be  drawn  between  various  parts  of 
Genesis.  With  regard  to  the  earlier  narratives,  Dr.  Skinner's 
views  might  have  been  entitled  to  more  respect  if  he  had 
shown  any  power  of  sympathizing  with  the  methods  of  the 
narrative  or  any  acquaintance  with  Dr.  Wright's  "  Scientific 
Confirmations  of  Old  Testament  History." 

How  incapable  he  is  of  understanding  the  genius  of  the 
book  may  perhaps  be  illustrated  by  quoting  his  note  on 
"  the  herb  of  the  field  "  in  iii.  18 :  "  The  creation  of  this  order 
of  vegetation  has  not  been  recorded  by  J.  Are  we  to  suppose 
that  it  comes  into  existence  simply  in  consequence  of  the 
earth's  diminished  productivity  caused  by  the  curse?  It  seems 
implied  at  all  events  that  the  earth  will  not  yield  even  this,  ex- 
cept under  the  compulsion  of  human  labour"  (p.  84).  Sym- 
pathy with  a  narrator's  spirit  and  methods  of  expression  is 


The  Szvansong  of  the  Wellhmisen  School  89 

indispensable  to  an  intelligent  exposition  of  his  meaning,  and 
this  quality  Dr.  Skinner  unhappily  does  not  possess.  Hence 
while  some  of  his  criticisms  on  the  earlier  chapters  contain  a 
measure  of  truth,  we  cannot  look  to  him  for  any  real  appre- 
ciation of  the  meaning  of  the  book.  And  with  regard  to  the 
patriarchal  traditions,  we  have  seen  even  in  this  article  how  a 
sifting  of  the  text  may  remove  "  impossible  situations."  There 
may  be  some  discrepant  traditions  in  the  book,  but  all  specu- 
lations on  this  subject  are  premature  till  we  know  more  of  the 
textual  history.  I  have  seen  too  many  problems  that  seemed 
insoluble  yield  to  some  surprisingly  simple  solution,  to  have 
any  faith  at  all  in  the  complicated  guesswork  that  appeals  to 
Dr.  Skinner's  credulity.  A  final  example  of  this  may  be  taken 
from  the  discussion  of  chapter  xxxviii. :  "  It  is  obvious  that 
the  legend  belongs  to  a  cycle  of  tradition  quite  independent  of 
the  story  of  Joseph.  The  latter  knows  of  no  separation  of 
Judah  from  his  brethren,  and  this  record  leaves  no  room  for  a 
reunion  [ !  H.M.W.].  Although  P,  who  had  both  before  him, 
represents  Judah  and  his  sons  as  afterwards  accompanying 
Jacob  to  Egypt  (xlvi  12),  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  inten- 
tion of  this  passage  is  to  relate  the  permanent  settlement  of 
Judah  in  Palestine"!  (p.  450).  Lucubrations  of  this  kind 
need  no  refutation.  It  is  only  necessary  to  read  the  chapter 
in  order  to  see  that  it  refers  to  a  family  incident  and  is  quite 
innocent  of  any  "  intention  to  relate  the  permanent  settle- 
ment "  of  a  tribe. 


IX 
THE  HIGHER  CRITICAL  QUANDARY  (I) 

A  CORRESPONDENCE  WITH  DRS.  BRIGGS  AND  DRIVER 

[From  tlie  Bihliotheca  Sacra,  July,   1911.] 

In  the  Expositor  for  September,  1910,  is  an  article  by 
the  Rev.  Professor  Alex.  R.  Gordon,  D.Litt.,  Montreal,  en- 
titled "  Skinner's  '  Genesis.'  "  The  following  sentences  oc- 
cur in  it: — 

"  He  [Dr.  Skinner]  is  frank  even  to  a  fault,  and  appreciative  of 
every  honest  effort  to  get  nearer  to  the  original.  .  .  .  The  general 
superiority  of  the  Massoretic  text  he  valiantly  defends  .  .  .  against 
the  strangely  perverse  attempt  of  '  the  more  recent  opposition ' 
represented  by  Dahse  and  Wiener  to  prove  the  Massoretic  text  '  so 
unreliable  that  no  analysis  of  documents  can  be  based  on  its  data.' 
In  his  most  caustic  vein  he  observes :  '  Truth  is  sometimes  stranger 
than  fiction ;  and,  however  surprising  it  may  seem  to  some,  we  can 
reconcile  our  minds  to  the  belief  that  the  M.  T.  does  reproduce 
with  substantial  accuracy  the  characteristics  of  the  original  auto- 
graphs.' .  .  . 

"  This  carefully  judicial  habit  of  mind  lends  all  the  greater 
■weight  to  Dr.  Skinner's  pronouncements  on  the  '  higher  critical ' 
question.  Here  he  shows  no  hesitation.  '  My  own  belief  in  the 
essential  soundness  of  the  prevalent  hypothesis,'  he  says  in  the 
Preface,  '  has  been  confirmed  by  the  renewed  examination  of  the 
text  of  Genesis  which  my  present  undertaking  required.' .  .  .  We 
have  already  quoted  one  of  the  sardonic  sentences  in  which  he 
disposes  of  Wiener's  attempt  to  evade  the  problem  by  a  frank 
abandonment  of  the  reliability  of  the  Hebrew." 

The  following  is  a  complete  copy  of  some  correspondence 
that  arose  out  of  this  article  in  the  Expositor,  with  the  ex- 
ception of  covering  letters  and  letters  marked  "  not  for  pub- 
lication." 

90 


The  Higher  Critical  Quandary  91 

9  Old   Square, 
Lincoln's  Inn,  W.  C. 

24  October  1910. 
To  the  General  Editors  of  the 

"  International   Critical   Commentary," 

per  the  Rev.  Canon  Driver,  D.D.,  F.B.A.,  etc., 
Christ  Church,  Oxford. 
Gentlemen : — 

It  is  with  supreme  reluctance  that  I  find  myself  compelled 
to  write  and  draw  your  attention  to  the  false  position  in 
which  Dr.  Skinner  has  placed  you;  but  unfortunately  I  can- 
not now  feel  any  doubt  as  to  my  duty  in  the  matter,  although 
I  well  know  that  the  inevitable  result  will  be  to  put  you  in 
a  position  that  will  give  you  no  less  pain  than  my  present 
action  does  me. 

For  the  detailed  facts  of  the  case  I  must  refer  you  to  my 
article  in  the  October  number  of  the  Bihliotheca  Sacra  of 
which  I  am  posting  a  copy  to  Dr.  Driver.^  In  reliance  on 
this  I  just  summarise  the  material  points. 

1.  In  discussing  the  Divine  appellations  in  Genesis  Dr. 
Skinner  only  records  50  cases  of  divergences  from  the  Masso- 
retic  Text  and  bases  his  argument  on  these.  In  fact  he  well 
knew  that  the  actual  number  was  very  much  greater,  and 
he  had  twice  had  his  attention  drawn  to  this  in  public.  The 
evidence  of  knowledge  is  as  follows: —  (a)  the  reference 
in  his  discussion  to  my  article  in  the  Bihliotheca  Sacra  for 
January  1909;  (b)  his  statement  as  to  the  Samaritan  Penta- 
teuch in  the  Expository  Times  for  May  1909;  (c)  the  ad- 
ditional variants  he  records  in  the  body  of  his  commentary; 
(d)  Professor  Schlogl's  contribution  to  the  Expository  Times 
for  September  1909  in  a  controversy  to  which  Dr.  Skinner 
\} Supra,  No.  8,  "The  Swansong  of  the  Wellhausen  School."] 


92  Pentatencha^  Studies 

was  himself  a  party.   Thus  we  have  here  both  supprcssio  veri 
and  siiggesfio  falsi. 

2.  Dr.  Skinner  argues  on  the  assumption  that  differences 
mig:ht  be  explained  by  causes  purely  internal  to  the  Septua- 
gint  and  says  not  a  word  of  any  Hebrew  (or  other)  corrob- 
oration of  Septuagintal  readings.  He  is  here  deliberately 
arguing  on  a  false  issue  after  his  attention  had  twice  been 
publicly  drawn  to  the  true  issue.  The  evidence  for  his  knowl- 
edge is  as  follows:  (a)  the  reference  in  his  discussion  to  my 
article  in  the  Bibliotheca  Sacra  for  January  1909 ;  (b)  the 
note  of  Mr.  Cox  in  the  Expository  Times  for  May  1909;  (c) 
my  reply  in  the  issue  of  the  same  magazine  for  July  1909. 

3.  In  spite  of  all  this  Dr.  Skinner  writes  as  follows  in  the 
preface  which  is  dated  April  1910 : —  "  My  own  belief  in  the 
essential  soundness  of  the  prevalent  hypothesis  has  been  con- 
firmed by  the  renewed  examination  of  the  text  of  Genesis 
which  my  present  undertaking  required."  Read  in  its  context 
that  sentence  has  only  one  natural  —  and  indeed  necessary  — 
interpretation:  viz,  that  he  had  given  a  full  and  fair  examin- 
ation to  the  facts  and  arguments  adduced  by  his  opponents. 
In  truth  he  had  done  nothing  of  the  sort.  Here  I  must  ask 
you  to  refer  to  pages  243  f  of  the  Expositor  for  September 
1910.  You  will  see  that  Dr.  Gordon  has,  through  no  fault 
of  his  own,  been  deceived  —  I  fear  that  is  the  right  word  — 
by  Dr.  Skinner.  He  naturally  assumed  that  Dr.  Skinner  had 
told  the  truth,  the  whole  truth  and  nothing  but  the  truth  on 
the  matters  with  which  he  purported  to  deal. 

After  much  anxious  thought  1  had  succeeded  in  persuad- 
ing myself  that  I  might  leave  my  article  in  the  Bibliotheca 
Sacra  to  have  its  natural  effect  and  had  abandoned  the  half- 
formed  intention  of  writing  to  you  on  the  subject.  Then  came 
Professor  Gordon's  article  in  the  September  Expositor.     On 


The  Higher  Critical  Quandary  93 

reading-  it  I  could  not  help  seeing  that  it  was  my  duty  to 
point  out  to  you  what  had  been  done  under  the  cover  and 
sanction  of  your  names.  I  have  only  waited  for  the  appear- 
ance of  the  October  number  of  the  Bibliotheca  Sacra  to  avoid 
the  necessity  of  writing  a  letter  the  size  of  a  pamphlet ;  but  in 
the  interval  I  have  received  further  confirmation  in  the  shape 
of  notices  of  a  volume  of  mine  by  Professor  Condamin  and  a 
Saturday  Reviewer,  both  of  whom  have  obviously  taken  Dr. 
Skinner's  allegations  at  face  value.  It  seems  so  improbable 
that  a  man  of  Dr.  Skinner's  standing  should  adopt  such  meth- 
ods and  that  he  should  not  see  in  what  a  position  he  was 
placing  you,  that  I  have  earnestly  striven  to  believe  that  I 
was  mistaken,  or  at  any  rate  had  taken  too  grave  a  view  of 
the  matter;  but  if  a  critic  of  Professor  Gordon's  knowledge 
and  authority  has  been  utterly  misled,  this  theory  becomes 
untenable.  I  limit  the  question  to  Professor  Gordon  for  the 
sake  of  clearness  and  simplicity:  but  yoii  will  understand 
that  every  reader  of  the  book  who  had  not  been  warned  would 
naturally  be  deceived  and  that  to  my  knowledge  this  has 
actually  occurred  in  at  least  two  other  instances. 

I  reserve  liberty  to  publish  this  letter  and  any  correspond- 
ence arising  out  of  it  not  marked  confidential,  and  of  course 
I  consent  to  similar  action  on  your  part. 

I  am  sending  a  copy  of  this  letter  to  Messrs.  T.  &  T.  Clark, 
the  British  publishers,  whose  interest  in  the  matter  appears 
to  me  to  be  second  only  to  your  own. 

Yours  faithfully, 

Harold  M.  Wiener. 


94  Pentateuchal  Studies 

from  dr.  driver 

Ch.  Ch.,  Oxford, 

Oct.  26. 
Dear  Sir: — 

I  am  in  receipt  of  your  letter,  and  accompanying  number 
of  the  Bihliotheca  Sacra.  I  will  communicate  your  letter  as 
soon  as  possible  to  Dr.  Briggs.  I  cannot,  however,  promise 
you  a  speedy  answer:  for,  as  he  is  in  New  York,  we  can  only 
confer  by  correspondence,  which  may  necessitate  more  than 
one  letter  on  each  side. 

Yours  faithfully, 

S.  R.  Driver. 

TO  DR.  driver 

9  Old  Square, 
Lincoln's  Inn,  W.  C. 

27  October  1910. 
Dear  Sir: — 

Thank  you  for  your  letter.  I  fully  understand  and  am 
quite  content  to  wait.  Indeed  in  this  matter  my  sympathies 
are  very  strongly  with  you,  and  I  should  be  only  too  glad  if 
you  could  find  yourself  in  a  position  to  say  that  on  referring 
the  matter  to  Dr.  Skinner  he  had  been  able  in  some  unex- 
pected way  to  justify  himself  completely. 

I  ought  perhaps  to  tell  you  that  som^  weeks  ago  I  sent 
Sir  W.  R.  Nicoll  an  answer  to  Dr.  Gordon  which  may  pos- 
sibly appear  next  month. 

Yours  faithfully, 

Harold  M.  Wiener. 

The  Rev.  Canon  Driver,  D.D.,  F.B.A., 
Christ  Church,  Oxford. 


The  Higher  Critical  Quandary  95 

FROM    THE   GENERAL   EDITORS 

Dear  Sir: — 

In  reply  to  3'our  letter  of  October  24,  we  desire  to  say 
that  in  our  opinion  Dr.  Skinner  has  in  no  way  either  placed 
us  in  a  false  position,  or  otherwise  compromised  us.  We  con- 
ceive that  it  is  the  function  of  an  editor  to  secure,  so  far  as 
this  is  possible,  the  author  whom  he  considers  to  be  generally 
the  most  competent  to  do  the  work  to  be  entrusted  to  him,  and 
with  whose  principles  and  point  of  view,  so  far  as  they  affect 
the  work  to  be  done,  he  is  generally  in  agreement.  But, 
having  secured  an  author,  with  whom  upon  general  grounds, 
we  are  as  editors  thus  satisfied,  we  must,  in  regard  to  the 
way  in  which  he  carries  out  his  work,  give  him  a  free  hand. 
It  is  neither  required  nor  expected  of  us,  as  editors,  that  we 
should  in  every  detail  tell  him  what  arguments  he  is  to  use 
or  not  use.  what  conclusions  he  is  to  adopt  or  not  to  adopt, 
what  writers  or  publications  he  is  to  mention  or  not  to  men- 
tion. Such  matters  as  these  are  left  naturally  to  his  own 
judgment;  and  if  his  judgment  in  any  given  case  leads  him 
to  use  or  not  use  a  particular  argument,  to  adopt  or  not 
adopt  a  particular  conclusion,  to  mention  or  not  to  mention 
a  particular  writer  or  publication,  we  do  not  consider  that  as 
editors  we  are  in  any  way  responsible.  Even  therefore  though 
it  were  true  that  in  the  particular  case  to  which  you  have 
called  our  attention.  Dr.  Skinner  was  at  fault,  we  could  not 
consistently  with  what  we  regard  as  our  position  as  editors 
consider  ourselves  to  be  in  any  respect  compromised. 

In  fairness  however  to  Dr.  Skinner,  we  think  it  right  to 
add  that  we  do  not  consider  him  to  have  been  at  fault  in  his 
treatment  of  the  case  to  which  you  have  referred.  There  ap- 
pears to  us  to  be  no  evidence  that,  when  writing  the  sentence 
quoted  by  you  from  his  preface.  Dr.  Skinner  had  not  given  a 


96  Pcntatenchal  Studies 

full  and  fair  examination  to  the  facts  and  arguments  adduced 
by  his  opponents.  He  was  under  no  obligation  to  state  in 
detail  what  he  had  done.  The  fact  that  he  had  reached,  from 
the  facts  adduced,  different  conclusions  from  those  which  you 
had  reached,  is  not  evidence  that  he  had  not  properly  consid- 
ered them;  and  he  himself  assures  us  that  he  had  done  this. 
As  we  have  already  said,  it  appears  to  us  that  it  is  for  a 
writer  to  decide  himself  what  arguments,  or  opposing  views, 
he  mentions.  If  therefore,  after  having  examined,  as  he  tells 
us  he  has  done,  the  conclusions  drawn  by  Prof.  Schlogl  or 
yourself  from  the  additional  variants,  and  the  Hebrew  corrob- 
oration, which  you  complain  of  his  not  mentioning,  he  was  of 
opinion  that  they  were  not  established,  we  do  not  understand 
why  blame  should  attach  to  him  for  not  referring  to  them. 
Yours  faithfully, 

C.  A.  Briggs. 
S.  R.  Driver. 
Jan.  4,  1911. 

to  the  general  editors 

9  Old   Square, 
Lincoln's  Inn,  W.  C. 

6  January  1911. 
To  the  General  Editors  of  the 

"  International   Critical   Commentary," 

per  the  Rev.  Canon  Driver,  D.D.,  F.B.A.,  etc., 
Christ  Church,  Oxford. 
Gentlemen : — 

I  am  obliged  to  you  for  your  letter  of  the  4th  inst. 
From  the  first  paragraph  of  the  letter  I  gather  that  the 
appearance  of  your  names  on  a  volume  of  the  International 
Critical  Commentary  docs  not  in  your  opinion  render  you  in 


The  Higher  Critical  Quandary  97 

any  way  responsible  for  the  truthfulness  or  the  g-ood  faith  of 
its  contents.  I  did  not  know  that  this  was  your  view  when  I 
wrote  on  the  24th  October  1910.  At  that  time  I  believed  that 
the  appearance  of  your  names  on  a  volume  was  a  sufficient 
guarantee  of  good  faith,  that  not  one  of  the  editors  of 
the  International  Critical  Commentary  would  wittingly  allow 
his  name  to  appear  on  a  publication  that  was  intended  to  de- 
ceive, and  that  if  Dr.  Skinner's  volume  contained  anything 
that  was  not  in  accordance  with  the  nicest  standards  of  honor 
you  were  a  proper  tribunal  to  deal  with  the  matter.  If  I  was 
wrong  in  all  this,  I  may  at  any  rate  thank  you  for  your  lucid 
exposition  of  the  principles  that  guide  you.  I  now  understand 
that  the  only  responsibility  you  admit  to  the  public  and  to 
those  who  may  buy  a  volume  in  teliance  on  your  names  is 
that  of  choosing  an  author  whom  you  regard  as  suitable. 

With  regard  to  the  second  paragraph  of  your  letter  there 
are  two  points  that  call  for  reply. 

(1)  You  write:  "it  appears  to  us  that  it  is  for  a  writer 
to  decide  himself  what  arguments,  or  opposing  views,  he 
mentions."  That  is,  I  think,  susceptible  of  more  than  one 
meaning.  In  the  case  before  us  Dr.  Skinner  had  decided  to 
refer  to  my  article  in  the  Bibliotheca  Sacra  and  to  write  an 
answer  to  it.  Having  come  to  that  decision  I  claim  that  it 
was  his  duty  to  state  my  facts  and  arguments  fairly,  and  not 
expressly  or  by  implication  to  mislead  his  readers.  He  has 
failed  to  act  fairly  in  all  the  following  respects:  (a)  he  has 
ignored  the  additional  variants  I  had  adduced  and  called  the 
readings  in  all  such  passages  "undisputed":  (b)  he  has 
himself  on  Syriac  evidence  rejected  a  reading  which  he  here 
reckons  as  "  undisputed"  (Skinner,  p.  330;  cp.  Bib.  Sac.  Oct. 
1910,  p.  060^)  :  (c)  he  has  written  an  answer  which  is  cal- 
V  kiupni,  p.  55.] 


98  Pentateuchal  Studies 

culated  to  make  his  readers  believe  that  I  had  advanced  an 
arg-ument  based  on  what  might  be  purely  Greek  corruptions 
and  nothing  more.  Now  your  canon  might  mean  that  in  your 
opinion  a  writer  is  free  to  elect  to  mention  some  only  of 
an  opponent's  arguments,  even  where  those  arguments  form 
an  interdependent  whole,  or  you  might  repudiate  this  inter- 
pretation. In  any  case  I  feel  it  my  duty  to  express  clearly 
my  dissent  from  the  standard  you  have  set  up.  In  my  view 
it  is  the  duty  of  a  writer  to  tell  the  truth,  the  whole  truth 
and  nothing  but  the  truth  with  regard  to  any  point  that  he 
thinks  deserving  of  detailed  discussion.  For  the  sake  of 
clearness  I  will  take  an  illustration  from  every-day  life.  If 
a  man  were  to  tell  me  that  he  had  three  apples  and  begin  to 
argue  on  that  basis  when  in  truth  and  in  fact  he  had  six,  I 
should  not  regard  his  presentation  of  the  case  as  satisfactory; 
and  I  cannot  apply  any  other  standard  to  a  man  who  records 
50  variants  and  argues  on  that  basis,  when  to  his  knowledge 
there  are  not  fewer  than  189.  I  may  point  out  that  since 
you  state  in  your  letter  that  Dr.  Skinner  had  considered  the 
additional  variants,  his  acquaintance  with  them  is  no  longer 
open  to  question. 

(2)  You  say:  "If,  therefore,  after  having  examined  .  .  . 
the  conclusions  drawn  by  Professor  Schlogl  or  yourself  .  .  .' 
he  was  of  opinion  that  they  were  not  established,  we  do  not 
understand  why  blame  should  attach  to  him  for  not  referring 
to  them."  Permit  me  to  say  that  I  never  suggested  that  any 
blame  would  attach  in  such  a  contingency.  My  complaint 
had  no  reference  whatever  to  any  "  conclusions."  He  stated 
my  conclusions  with  sufficient  fulness  and  then  argued  against 
them  on  premises  that  were  false  to  his  knowledge.  I  com- 
plained of  suppression  of  facts,  suggestion  of  falsehood, 
ignoring  of  arguments.     You  must,  I  think,  be  able  to  un- 


The  Higher  Critical  Quandary  99 

derstand  the  difference  between  a  fact  and  a  conclusion 
drawn  from  that  fact.  The  former  is  something  undeniable, 
the  latter  an  inference  as  to  which  different  minds  may  con- 
ceivably differ.  This  part  of  your  letter  is  therefore  not 
ad  rem. 

As  the  O.  T.  general  editors  of  the  International  Critical 
Commentary  admit  no  responsibility  if  the  contributors  to 
that  series  fail  in  the  elements  of  truthfulness,  it  must  be  left 
to  the  public  to  judge  this  matter. 

I  thank  you  for  the  trouble  you  have  taken. 
Yours  faithfully, 

Harold  M.  Wiener. 

from  dr.  driver 

Ch.  Ch.,  Oxford. 

Jan.  10. 
Dear  Sir: — 

I  am  in  receipt  of  your  letter,  which  I  have  forwarded  to 
Dr.  Briggs.     Until  I  hear  from  him,  I  am  naturally  unable 
to  say  whether  we  shall  desire  to  send  you  a  reply  or  not. 
Yours  faithfully, 

S.  R.  Driver. 

TO  DR.  driver 

9  Old   Square, 
Lincoln's  Inn,  W.  C. 

11  January  1911. 
Dear  Sir: — 

In  view  of  your  letter  of  yesterday's  date  I  should  like  to 
know  your  wishes  as  to  immediate  publication  of  the  corre- 
spondence. When  I  received  the  letter  of  Jan.  4  I  thought 
that  it  barred  the  way  to  further  discussion  because  it  ap- 


100  Pentateuchal  Studies 

peared  to  me  that  the  differences  between  us  were  partly 
due  to  two  entirely  incompatible  theories  of  editorial  respon- 
sibility. Accordingly  I  sent  off  a  complete  copy  of  the  cor- 
respondence to  the  Bibliotheca  Sacra.  I  am  therefore 
writing  today  to  delay  its  publication  for  two  or  three  days, 
and  I  should  be  glad  to  know  whether  you  would  like  me 
to  delay  it  further  until  you  can  hear  from  Dr.  Briggs. 

We  are  so  little  ad  idem  in  this  ?Tiatter  that  I  venture  to 
ask  you  to  try  and  realise  some  of  the  considerations  that 
weigh  with  me.  Before  I  came  to  Biblical  studies  I  should 
have  believed  that  such  an  episode  as  this  of  Dr.  Skinner  was 
impossible.  Gradually  I  have  been  robbed  of  one  illusion 
after  another ;  but  I  believe  that  a  large  portion  of  the  general 
public  still  think  as  I  did  some  seven  years  ago.  If  that  be 
so  they  ought  to  be  disabused  of  their  belief :  and  for  that 
reason  the  speedy  publication  of  the  correspondence  appears 
to  me  to  be  desirable. 

On  the  other  hand  I  am  naturally  extremely  anxious  that 
I  should  not  do  you  the  slightest  injustice.  Yesterday's  let- 
ter suggests  to  me  a  possibility  that  when  you  signed  the 
letter  of  Jan.  4  you  had  perhaps  not  quite  grasped  all  that 
was  involved  in  my  original  letter.  Now  if  that  be  so,  I  have 
not  attained  my  object.  I  tried  to  make  matters  perfectly 
clear;  if  I  have  so  far  failed  that  there  can  be  a  scintilla  of 
doubt  in  your  mind  as  to  my  exact  meaning,  please  tell  me 
so,  and  let  me  answer  as  fully  as  may  be  any  questions  that 
may  be  necessary  to  clear  the  matter  up.  It  is  most  certainly 
not  to  anybody's  advantage  that  an  erroneous  impression  of 
your  attitude  should  get  abroad.  When  I  wrote  my  first  let- 
ter I  believed  that  neither  you  nor  Dr.  Briggs  would  in  any 
way  permit  your  names  to  be  used  to  give  currency  to  false- 
hood:  and  it  did  not  for  one  moment  occur  to  me  that  you 


The  Higher  Critical  Quandary  101 

would  adopt  or  had  adopted  a  theory  of  editorial  responsi- 
bility which  made  this  possible.  I  only  abandoned  this  view 
because  your  own  signatures  forced  me  to  do  so;  and  it  was 
obviously  impossible  for  me  to  go  behind  them.  But  if  on 
reflection  you  think  that  there  is  room  for  further  considera- 
tion, please  tell  me  to  hold  up  the  publication  of  the  corre- 
spondence. Your  final  decision  must  affect  the  traditions  of 
Anglo-American  O.  T.  studies  for  a  long  time  to  come. 

Of  course  at  any  moment  a  rash  reviewer  may  write  a 
notice  that  will  force  my  hand :  but  that  is  a  risk  that  we  may 
have  to  take :  and  in  case  of  any  difficulty  I  should  venture  to 
consult  you  as  to  the  proper  course  to  adopt  if  your  final  de- 
cision were  still  pending. 

Yours  faithfully, 

Harold  M,  Wiener. 
The  Rev.  Canon  Driver,  D.D.,  F.B.A. 


Here  followed  two  letters  marked  "  not  for  publication " 
(one  from  Dr.  Driver  to  the  writer  and  a  reply  from  the 
writer  to  Dr.  Driver).  The  correspondence  then  continued 
as  follows : — 

from  dr.  driver 

Ch.  Ch.,  Oxford, 

Jan.  15. 
Dear  Sir: — 

I  am  very  much  obliged  to  you  for  your  letter,  and  appre- 
ciate your  willingness  to  postpone  the  publication  of  the  cor- 
respondence. Your  letter  is  certainly  very  helpful ;  for  it 
appears  to  me  to  both  clear  and  narrow  the  issue.  It  is  a 
satisfaction  to  find  that  we  agree  upon  points  on  which  Dr. 
Briggs  and  I  had  both  supposed  that  we  differed ;  and  if  we 


102  Pcntateuchal  Studies 

had  had  this  letter  before  us  when  we  drew  up  our  reply,  I 
have  little  doubt  that  it  would  have  been  a  different  one.  I 
forwarded  your  letter  to  Dr.  Briggs  by  yesterday's  mail,  at 
the  same  time  telling  him  what  I  now  thought :  I  also  tele- 
graphed to  him  to  defer  sending  an  answer  to  my  previous 
letter,  till  he  received  this. 

Your  first  letter  was  in  my  possession,  though  not  actually 
before  me,  at  the  time  of  my  signing  our  reply:  but  I  had 
read  it  very  carefully  before  sending  it  to  Dr.  Briggs,  and 
examined  the  passages  referred  to  in  it.  Both  it  and  our 
reply  are  now  with  Dr.  Briggs,  as  I  thought  that  he  might 
wish  to  refer  to  them :  but  I  asked  him  to  return  them  to  me ; 
and  as  I  cannot  now  do  more  till  I  hear  from  him,  I  do  not 
think  I  need  avail  myself  of  your  kind  offer  to  supply  me 
with  a  duplicate. 

I  am  acquainted  with  your  writings,  and  have  read  con- 
siderable parts  of  them;  indeed,  I  am  indebted  to  you  for 
sending  me  all  the  most  important.  I  obtained  your  Essays 
in  P.  C,  as  soon  as  it  appeared ;  and  have  several  times  re- 
ferred to  it,  —  I  mean,  on  other  points  besides  the  present 
question. 

Believe  me, 

Yours  truly, 

S.  R.  Driver. 

FROM    THE   GENERAL   EDITORS 

New  York,  February  28,  1911. 
Harold  M.  Wiener,  Esquire. 

Dear  Sir: — 

We  beg  to  acknowledge  your  letter  of  January  Gth  in  re- 
ply to  ours  of  January  4th,  as  well  as  more  personal  commu- 
nications  from   you   of  January   11th   and   13th..    We   regret 


The  Higher  Critical  Quandary  103 

that  the  wide  separation  of  the  editors  of  the  International 
Commentary,  and  the  consequent  time  required  for  any  ex- 
change of  views,  has  led  to  such  a  delay  in  our  answer.  We 
now  desire  to  say  that  we  welcome  the  evidence  which  we 
believe  we  find  in  your  letters  that  our  conception  of  the 
duties  of  the  editors  of  such  a  series  does  not,  after  all,  differ 
very  widely  from  yours. 

The  issue  seems  to  be  narrowed  down  to  this:  whether  or 
not  in  anything  which  Dr.  Skinner  has  written,  or  omitted 
to  write,  in  his  Commentary  on  Genesis,  he  has  laid  himself 
open  to  just  criticism  on  the  part  of  the  editors  under  the 
general  rules  which  we  seem  to  agree  should  govern  editorial 
supervision  in  such  cases.  On  this  point  we  desire,  first,  to 
reaffirm  the  opinion  which  we  have  already  expressed  with 
regard  to  Dr.  Skinner;  and,  secondly,  to  explain  more  ex- 
plicitly than  we  did  before  the  grounds  on  which  our  opinion 
rests. 

First,  there  appears  to  us  to  be  absolutely  no  evidence 
showing  that  Dr.  Skinner  wrote  with  any  intention  to  deceive ; 
and  we  must  emphatically  deny  that  he  did  deceive,  or  that 
he  wrote  untruthfully,  or  that  he  omitted  to  mention  any  facts 
which  were  of  any  importance  for  the  question  at  issue. 

Secondly,  we  base  this  opinion  on  the  following  considera- 
tions. We  have  both  been  familiar  with  the  Septuagint  for 
many  years,  and  have  compared  large  parts  of  it  very  minutely 
with  the  Massoretic  text.  As  the  result  of  this  comparison 
we  both  hold  that,  where  the  two  differ,  the  Massoretic  text 
is  to  be  preferred  until  the  reading  presupposed  by  the  Sep- 
tuagint has  been  shown  to  be  superior  to  it,  especially  by 
yielding  a  sense  in  better  agreement  with  the  context  or  by 
being  preferable  upon  philological  or  grammatical  grounds. 
One  of  us  expressed  substantially  this  view  as  long  ago  as 


104  Pentateiichal  Studies 

1890  (Driver,  Notes  on  Samuel,  p.  xl),  and  he  repeated  it 
in  1906  (Book  of  Jeremiah,  ed.  1,  p.  xxv),  "The  principle 
which,  I  venture  to  think,  will  most  generally  commend  itself 
is  that  of  giving-  the  Hebrew  text  the  general  preference,  and 
of  deviating  from  it  only  where  the  grounds  are  cogent,  and 
the  advantage  gained  is  unmistakeable  and  clear." 

In  such  expressions  as  these  we  have  proposed  no  novel 
doctrine,  but  we  only  voice  the  general  judgment  of  sober 
modern  scholars.  Dr.  Swete  writes  to  the  same  effect 
(Introduction  to  the  Old  Testament  in  Greek,  1900,  p. 
444-5).  We  cannot,  therefore,  consistently  with  these  prin- 
ciples, formed  long  ago,  without  any  reference  to  the  present 
controversy,  admit  that  a  variant  reading  presupposed  either 
by  all  or  by  some  MSS.  of  the  Septuagint,  possesses  any  value 
as  against  the  Massoretic  text,  or  even  casts  doubt  upon  the 
Massoretic  text,  until  good  cause  has  been  shown  for  prefer- 
ring it.  In  our  opinion  this  has  not  been  done  in  the  case  of 
those  variants  which  you  blame  Dr.  Skinner  for  disregarding.^ 

The  series  of  Commentaries  of  which  we  are  editors  are 
commentaries,  not  on  the  Septuagint  or  other  versions,  but 
on  the  Hebrew  text  of  the  various  books  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment ;  and  it  is  no  instruction  given  by  us  to  the  contributors 
to  register  every  variant  reading  presupposed  by  the  versions. 
They  are  free  to  use  their  own  discretion  in  mentioning  such 
variants  as  they  think  suitable  to  their  purpose ;  and  they  nat- 
urally mention  chiefly  such  as  suggest  probable  emendations 
of  the  Massoretic  text  or  possess  some  other  special  interest. 
The  readings  which  you  censure  Dr.  Skinner  for  not  noticing 
have  not  been  shown  to  possess  the  smallest  critical  value,  or 
to  supply  any  sufficient  ground  for  questioning  the  correctness 
of  the  Massoretic  text. 

*  [It  will  be  observed  tbat  iii  tbe  above  letter  the  geueral  editors 


The  Higher  Critical  Quandary  105 

You  acknowledge  that  Dr.  Skinner's  treatment  of  the  Sep- 

tuagint  variants  in  the  matter  of  the  divine  names  in  Genesis, 

do  not  cite  any  expression  of  the  senior  editor  and  first  signatory, 
Dr.  Briggs,  as  voicing  what  they  term  "  the  general  judgment  of 
sober  modern  scholars."  After  the  correspondence  had  been  closed, 
I  looljed  up  his  worlis  to  see  whether  I  could  discover  any  state- 
ment of  "  these  principles,  formed  long  ago,  without  any  reference 
to  the  present  controversy,"  and  I  found  that  in  point  of  fact  there 
were  a  number  of  statements  absolutely  contradicting  them.  I  will 
cite  only  three: — 

"  In  a  very  large  number  of  instances  the  ancient  Versions,  es- 
pecially LXX  and  Vulgate  are  more  correct  than  M.T.  Modern 
scholars  have  greatly  erred  in  a  too  exalted  estimate  of  the  cor- 
rectness of  the  unpointed  Hebrew  text  in  this  regard.  The  meas- 
ures make  it  evident  that  even  M.T.  by  its  numerous  additions 
and  changes  of  the  original,  is  as  truly  an  interpretation  of  an 
older  text  as  LXX  and  other  ancient  Versions"  (Psalms  (1906), 
vol.  i.  p.  liii)  ;  "The  Septuagint  version  of  the  Law  .  .  .  takes  us 
back  of  the  Maccabean  text"  (General  Introduction  to  the  Study 
of  Holy  Scripture  (1899),  p.  238);  "There  can  be  no  doubt,  as 
Robertson  Smith  states :  '  It  has  gradually  become  clear  to  the  vast 
majority  of  conscientious  students,  that  the  Septuagint  is  really  of 
the  greatest  value  as  a  witness  to  the  early  state  of  the  text'"  {op. 
cit.,  p.  229). 

In  such  expressions  Dr.  Briggs  is  in  fact  supported  by  nearly 
all  the  "  sober  modern  scholars  "  who  have  contributed  volumes  on 
the  Old  Testament  to  the  International  Critical  Commentary  at 
the  invitation  of  the  general  editors.  Thus  Dr.  Toy  writes  of  the 
LXX  •  in  Proverbs,  "  It  represents  in  general  an  older  text  than 
that  of  the  received  Hebrew  tradition"  (Proverbs,  p.  xxxii).  I 
do  not  dilate  on  the  question  now,  as  I  wish  to  see  whether  the 
general  editors  will  really  venture  to  exercise  the  right  of  further 
discussion  which  they  have  specifically  reserved  in  the  letter  of 
May  3;  but  I  hope  to  return  to  it  before  long.     [See  infra.  No.  11.] 

Meanwhile  I  desire  to  lay  stress  on  the  following  ix)ints:  (1)  For 
a  century  and  a  half  the  critics  followed  Astruc's  clue  practically 
without  textual  investigation;  (2)  When  recent  textual  researches 
had  rendered  their  position  insecure.  Dr.  Skinner  deliberately  mis- 
represented the  facts  in  an  attempt  to  bolster  up  the  documentary 
theory;  (.3)  When  the  attention  of  the  general  editors  was  drawn 
to  this,  they  took  no  steps  to  undeceive  the  public,  which  had  been 
deceived  under  the  cover  and  sanction  of  their  names,  and  put 
forward  the  contentious  contained  in  the  joint  letters. — H.  M.  W.] 


106  PcntatcucJial  Studies 

which  are  put  forward  by  Professor  Eerdmans,  is  from  his 
point  of  view  sufficient.  If  he  holds,  as  we  beHeve  he  has  a 
right  to  hold,  that  the  larger  number  of  variants  claimed  e.g. 
by  Professor  Schlogl  has  no  critical  worth,  why  should  he 
mention  them?  It  appears  to  us  that  Professor  Schlogl  is 
following  altogether  unsound  principles  of  textual  criticism, 
and  that  his  conclusions  with  regard  to  the  Hebrew  text  of 
Genesis  are  destitute  of  the  smallest  probability. 

If  Dr.  Skinner  does  not  specifically  state  that  some  He- 
brew variants  agree  with  the  Septuagint,  it  is  simply  because 
the  history  of  the  Hebrew  text  shows  that  such  agreements 
are  presumably  late  and  possibly  accidental,  and  have  no 
bearing  upon  the  original  text.  Evidence  from  the  Samaritan 
Pentateuch  is,  of  course,  of  a  different  kind,  but  so  meagre  as 
to  decide  nothing-  in  the  matter  of  literary  analysis.  This  be- 
ing the  case,  we  cannot  agree  that  Dr.  Skinner  has  withheld 
from  his  readers  any  facts  relevant  in  reality  to  the  question 
at  issue.  He  has  done  nothing  more  than  is  done  in  general 
by  commentators  on  the  Old  Testament,  who  habitually  take 
no  notice  of  the  readings  of  the  versions  which  they  consider 
to  be  without  value  for  the  emendation  of  the  Massoretic  text 
and  to  possess  no  other  special  interest. 

In  the  dialogues  in  the  book  of  Job,  as  is  well  known,  the 
names  God  and  Shaddai  —  except  in  12:  9  —  are  uniformly 
employed.  The  Septuagint,  however,  in  most  cases  represents 
both  these  names  by  Lord:  but  the  fact  —  as  we  imagine 
scholars  would  universally  agree  —  affords  no  justification  for 
correcting,  or  even  for  questioning  in  regard  to  the^e  names, 
the  existing  Hebrew  text  of  the  book. 

In  this  connection  we  may  refer  to  Dr.  Skinner's  treatment 
of  Genesis  16:  11.  It  appears  to  us  to  be  not  at  all  clear  that 
in  this  passage  God  is  the  true  reading  of  the  Hebrew.     The 


The  Higher  Critical  Quandary  107 

stress  lies  upon  the  verb  heard,  not  upon  the  particular  divine 
name  employed ;  and  in  the  explanation  of  the  name  "  Sam- 
uel "  in  I  Samuel  1 :  20  the  Tetrag^rammaton  is  used. 

It  is,  however,  not  possible  for  us,  nor  do  we  think  it  is 
necessary,  to  cite  further  illustrations  of  our  view.  Even  if 
we  thought  that  Dr.  Skinner's  judgment  had  been  at  fault  in 
the  matter  of  material  selected,  we  should  not  necessarily  as 
editors  have  felt  called  upon  to  insist  that  his  judgment  should 
yield  to  ours,  convinced  as  we  are  that  he  has  presented  all 
essential  facts  that  bear  upon  the  question  before  him. 

We  naturally  read  the  sheets  of  our  contributors  and  make 
suggestions  upon  them,  but  we  do  not  consider  it  to  be  our 
duty  to  instruct  them  how  they  are  to  deal  with  every  ques- 
tion which  arises.  But  for  the  reasons  which  we  have  now 
explained,  we  were  satisfied  with  Dr.  Skinner's  treatment  of 
the  present  case. 

We  beg  to  remain. 

Yours  faithfully, 

C.  A.  Briggs. 

S.  R.  Driver. 

to  the  general  editors 

9  Old   Square, 
Lincoln's  Inn,  W.  C. 
To  the  General  Editors  of  the  '^^  Alarch   1911. 

"  International  Critical  Commentary," 

per  the  Rev.  Canon  Driver,  D.D.,  F.B.A.,  etc. 
Gentlemen : — 

I  thank  you  for  your  letter  bearing  date  February  28  1911 

to  hand  this  morning.    It  was  not  necessary  to  apologise  for 

the  delay  in  answering  as  I  most  fully  realise  your  difficulties. 

It  appears  to  me  that  your  letter  intertwines  two  sets  of  con- 


108  Pentateiichal  Studies 

siderations :  first,  the  views  you  yourselves  hold  on  textual 
criticism,  and  secondly,  the  issue  of  Dr.  Skinner's  honesty  or 
dishonesty.  I  should  be  delighted  to  discuss  the  former  with 
either  or  both  of  you  on  any  other  occasion,  and  not  the  less 
because  I  notice  that  your  letter  avoids  many  germane  consid- 
erations that  I  have  advanced  in  the  articles  to  which  your 
attention  has  been  drawn :  but  I  feel  that  I  should  be  failing- 
in  my  duty  on  this  occasion,  if  I  were  to  enter  on  any  line  of 
argument  that  might  for  one  moment  obscure  the  real  issues. 
Either  the  ordinary  rules  of  good  faith  apply  to  the  Interna- 
tional Critical  Commentary  and  the  conduct  of  its  contributors 
or  else  they  do  not :  and  my  present  task  is  to  strive  to  make 
that  so  clear  that  no  confusion  shall  be  possible. 

1.  In  m.y  first  letter  I  wrote  "  In  discussing  the  Divine  ap- 
pellations in  Genesis  Dr.  Skinner  only  records  50  cases  of 
divergences  from  the  Massoretic  text  and  bases  his  arguments 
on  these.  In  fact  he  well  knew  that  the  actual  number  was 
very  much  greater,  and  he  had  twice  had  his  attention  drawn 
to  this  in  public.  .  .  .  Thus  we  have  here  both  suppressio  veri 
and  suggestio  falsi."  You  do  not  now  dispute  the  accuracy 
of  my  charge,  nor  could  you,  for  I  have  proved  it  up  to  the 
hilt.  But  you  say :  "  We  cannot  .  .  .  admit  that  a  variant  read- 
ing presupposed  either  by  all  or  by  some  MSS.  of  the  Septu- 
agint,  possesses  any  value  as  against  the  Massoretic  text,  or 
even  casts  doubt  upon  the  Massoretic  text,  until  good  cause 
has  been  shown  for  preferring  it.  In  our  opinion  this  has 
not  been  done  in  the  case  of  those  variants  which  you  blame 
Dr.  Skinner  for  disregarding.  .  .  .  The  readings  which  you 
censure  Dr.  Skinner  for  not  noticing  have  not  been  shown  to 
possess  the  smallest  critical  value,  or  to  supply  any  sufficient 
ground  for  questioning  the  correctness  of  the  Massoretic 
text."     Now  these  opinions  would  be  open  to  discussion  on 


The  Higher  Critical  Quandary  109 

the  question  of  scholarship,  but  on  the  question  of  good  faith 
they  do  not  seem  to  me  to  have  any  bearing  for  three  reasons : 
(a)  Dr.  Skinner  himself,  as  I  pointed  out  in  my  letter  of  the 
6th  January,  adopted  one  of  these  variants  which  in  your 
opinion  "  have  not  been  shown  to  possess  the  smallest  critical 
value  "  in  another  portion  of  his  commentary.  You  may  hold 
that  he  was  mistaken  in  so  doing:  but  as  he  did  adopt  it  you 
cannot  hold  that  he  entertained  an  honest  opinion  that  it  pos- 
sessed no  critical  value.  This  alone  disposes  of  the  argument 
that  "  If  he  holds,  as  we  believe  he  has  a  right  to  hold,  that 
the  larger  number  of  variants  claimed  .  .  .  has  no  critical 
worth  "  he  is  under  no  obligation  to  mention  them.  One  at 
any  rate  of  that  large  number  seemed  to  him  so  valuable  that 
he  preferred  it  to  the  Massoretic  text.  In  view  of  this  I 
scarcely  know  what  to  make  of  your  emphatic  denial  "  that 
he  did  deceive,  or  that  he  wrote  untruthfully,  or  that  he  omit- 
ted to  mention  any  facts  which  were  of  any  importance  for 
the  question  at  issue." 

(b)  Dr.  Skinner  himself  most  emphatically  admits  what 
you  say  you  cannot,  viz:  that  a  variant  reading  presupposed 
either  by  all  or  by  some  AISS.  of  the  Septuagint  possesses 
value.  "  It  cannot  be  denied,"  he  says,  "  that  the  facts  ad- 
duced by  these  writers  import  an  element  of  uncertainty  into 
the  analysis,  so  far  as  it  depends  on  the  criterion  of  the  di- 
vine names."  And  he  then  goes  on  to  put  forward  the  thor- 
oughly disingenuous  numerical  argument  based  on  the  number 
50  for  the  variants.  This  argument  itself  presupposes  that 
the  variants  have  importance  and  if  that  be  so  of  the  50,  it  is 
so  of  the  much  larger  number  that  existed  to  his  knowledge. 
A  writer  who  held  that  the  variants  were  of  no  importance 
could  not  have  written  the  numerical  argument. 

(c)  Dr.   Skinner  in  the  Expository  Times  and  you  your- 


110  Pentatcuchal  Studies 

selves  in  this  letter  of  the  28th  February  place  reliance  on 
the  Samaritan  Pentateuch.  Yet  he  here  ignored  its  eight 
variants. 

To  return  to  my  old  illustration  of  the  apples.  If  a  man 
tells  me  that  he  has  three  apples  when  to  his  knowledge  he 
has  six,  I  cannot  regard  his  statement  as  ingenuous.  If  his 
friends  then  urge  that  the  matter  is  of  no  consequence  because 
in  their  opinion  it  is  immaterial  whether  he  has  any  apples  at 
all,  that  can  make  no  difference  to  the  question  of  his  truth- 
fulness. If  they  admit  that  some  of  the  apples  possessed  some 
sort  of  importance  while  the  others  did  not,  that  still  leaves 
my  opinion  on  the  original  issue  unaffected :  and  if  the  man 
himself  said  that  his  possession  of  not  more  than  three  apples 
was  important,  I  conclude  that  with  the  best  of  goodwill  his 
friends  are  unable  to  offer  any  excuse  that  will  hold  water, 

2.  In  my  original  letter  I  wrote  "  Dr.  Skinner  argues  on 
the  assumption  that  differences  might  be  explained  by  causes 
purely  internal  to  the  Septuagint  and  says  not  a  word  of  any 
Hebrew  (or  other)  corroboration  of  Septuagintal  readings. 
He  is  here  deliberately  arguing  on  a  false  issue  after  his  at- 
tention had  twice  been  publicly  drawn  to  the  true  issue."  You 
say  (a)  that  the  history  of  the  Hebrew  text  shows  that  such 
agreements  are  presumably  late  and  possibly  accidental:  (b) 
that  the  Samaritan  evidence  is  meagre:  and  (c)  that  "  He  has 
done  nothing  more  than  is  done  in  general  by  commentators 
on  the  Old  Testament,  who  habitually  take  no  notice  of  the 
readings  of  the  versions  which  they  consider  ...  to  possess 
no  other  special  interest."  Now  I  differ  from  you  as  to  the 
point  of  scholarship,  but  the  difference  is  not  very  striking 
since  the  high  water  mark  of  your  assurance  is  reached  in 
the  expressions  '  presumably  late  and  possibly  accidental  "  — 
not  even  "  probably  accidental."    If  you  really  think  phrases 


The  Higher  Critical  Quandary  111 

like  this  sufficient  to  rule  out  inconvenient  evidence,  we  are 
separated  on  a  fundamental  principle  of  research:  but  putting 
this  aside  "the  possibly  accidental"  Hebrew  variants, /'/u^  the 
"  meagre  "  Samaritan  variants,  plus  the  evidence  of  Aquila, 
Hexaplar  notes,  the  Targum,  etc.,  which  you  do  not  even 
mention,  together  constitute  a  body  of  evidence  tO'  which 
such  epithets  as  "  presumably  late,"  "  possibly  accidental," 
and  "  meagre  "  have  no  application.  But  even  this  does  not 
touch  the  main  point.  Dr.  Skinner  knew  that  this  body  of 
evidence  existed :  it  is  impossible  to  contend  that  variants  that 
rebutted  his  argument  as  to  corruptions,  etc.,  of  the  Greek 
text  possessed  no  "  special  interest "  for  the  question  he  was 
considering.  You  will  correct  me  if  I  am  mistaken,  but  so 
far  as  I  know  O.  T.  commentators  generally  would  not  be 
prepared  to  concede  that  they  habitually  omit  all  mention  of 
inconvenient  facts  and  then  argue  on  the  basis  that  no  such 
facts  exist.  Here  again  it  seems  to  me  indubitable  that  Dr. 
Skinner  wrote  untruthfully  and  that  he  omitted  to  mention 
facts  which  were  of  importance  for  the  question  at  issue. 
That  he  did  deceive  is  shown  by  the  facts  adduced  in  my  first 
letter. 

You  cite  my  admission  about  Eerdmans :  let  me  supply  the 
context :  "As  a  matter  of  fact  Dr.  Skinner's  note  would  have 
been  a  sufficient  reply  to  Eerdmans :  but  as  a  reply  to  me  it 
was  entirely  dishonest.  You  may  say  '  well,  even  if  there 
are  10,000  variants  in  Genesis,  that  does  not  alter  my  view  of 
the  documentary  theory  because  my  principles  of  textual  crit- 
icism are  different.'  You  cannot  say  that  if  to  your  knowl- 
edge there  are  189  variants,  including  some  Hebrew  vari- 
ants, it  is  honest  to  lead  readers  to  believe  that  there  are  not 
more  than  50,  or  that  they  may  be  due  to  purely  Greek 
causes." 


112  Pciitatcuchal  Studies 

I  have  striven  to  keep  this  letter  as  much  as  possible  to  the 
true  issues.  To  me  it  seems  that  what  we  are  debating-  goes 
to  the  very  root  of  the  claim  of  the  I.  C.  C.  to  be  regarded  as 
in  any  sense  scientific.  To  my  mind  it  is  a  pre-condition  of  all 
scientific  work  that  the  investigator  shall  strive  to  tell  the 
truth  to  the  best  of  his  ability.  I  am  not  sure  that  I  under- 
stand even  now  whether  you  agree  with  this  or  not,  for  you 
seem  to  me  to  rest  your  case  not  on  whether  Dr.  Skinner 
spoke  the  truth,  or  even  on  whether  he  spoke  the  truth  on 
matters  that  he  himself  thought  important,  but  on  whether 
yon  think  the  matters  on  which  he  failed  to  speak  the  truth 
important.  To  my  mind  this  is  the  abandonment  of  the  prin- 
ciple of  truthfulness  —  the  erecting  of  some  standard  of  be- 
lief on  critical  questions  as  a  canon  that  overrides  the  obliga- 
tion to  speak  the  truth,  the  whole  truth  and  nothing  but  the 
truth  on  the  matters  discussed.  And  herein  lies  some  of  the 
gravity  of  this  correspondence.  If  the  letter  of  February  28 
represents  your  last  word  on  this  subject,  the  most  authorita- 
tive Anglo-American  O.  T.  critics  reject  ethical  standards 
that  are  universally  accepted  in  other  fields  of  learning. 
Believe  me, 

Yours  faithfully, 

Harold  M.  Wiener. 

from  the  general  editors 
Dear  Sir: — 

It  appears  to  us  that  no  good  purpose  will  be  served  by 
prolonging  this  correspondence.  It  is  not  easy  for  scholars 
to  meet  the  charge  of  untruthfulness  patiently.  We  have  en- 
deavored to  do  so,  assuming  that  the  charge  was  based  on  a 
misapprehension  on  your  part.  But  we  do  not  think  we  should 
go  further.  We  of  course  accept  your  major  premise,  that 
untruthfulness   is  reprehensible,  but  this  seems  to  be  almost 


The  Higher  Critical  Quandary  113 

the  entire  extent  of  our  common  ground.  We  deny  abso- 
lutely your  minor  premise,  that  untruthfulness  is  shown 
in  Dr.  Skinner's  book.  The  question  between  us  does  not 
relate  to  the  elementary  principles  of  honesty,  but  to  the 
elementary  principles  of  textual  criticism.  You  seem  to 
regard  virtually  any  variant  of  any  Version  or  of  any 
MS.  of  a  Version,  of  whatever  date  or  character,  as  superior 
to  M.  T.  This  is  not  a  principle  accepted  among  scholars 
at  large ;  in  fact,  as  far  as  we  know,  it  is  confined  to 
Schlogl  and  yourself.  It  is  obvious  that,  under  the  circum- 
stances, little  progress  can  be  looked  for  in  this  discussion, 
and  we  must  beg  you  to  excuse  us  from  continuing  it.  We 
of  course,  reserve  the  right  to  treat  the  issues  of  scholarship 
involved  in  whatever  manner  we  may  think  proper. 
Very  truly  yours, 

C.  A.  Briggs. 
May  3,  1911.  S.  R.  Driver. 

9  Old   Square, 
Lincoln's  Inn,  W.  C. 

4  May  1911. 
To  the  General  Editors  of  the 

"  International  Critical  Commentary." 
Gentlemen : — 

I  thank  you  for  your  letter  of  May  3  and  have  only  to  add 
one  thing,  viz.  that  you  are  mistaken  in  your  interpretation 
of  my  textual  attitude  —  I  think  also  in  your  interpretation 
of  that  of  Professor  Schlogl.  So  far  as  I  am  aware  I  have 
never  written  anything  that  will  bear  the  construction  that 
any  variant  of  any  Version  or  of  any  MS.  of  a  Version  of 
whatever  date  or  character  is  superior  to  M.  T.,  and  certainly 
that  is  not  my  opinion.  Yours  faithfully, 

Harold  M.  Wiener. 


X 
THE  HIGHER  CRITICAL  QUANDARY  (II) 

A  CORRESPONDENCE  WITH  DR.  GORDON 

[From   the  Bibliotheca  Sacra,  April,  1912.] 

from  dr.  gordon 

Presbyterian  College, 

Montreal,  Aug.  25,  1911. 

To  the  Editor  of  the  "  BibHotheca  Sacra." 

Dear  Sir: — 

I  have  just  read  the  correspondence  in  your  July  number, 

arising  out  of  my  review  of  Dr.  Skinner's  "  Genesis."    I  have 

no  desire  to  enter  into  the  controversy  further  than  to  disclaim 

Mr.  Wiener's  suggestion  that  I  have  been  either  "  deceived  " 

or  "  misled  "  by  Dr.  Skinner  in  regard  to  the  questions  under 

dispute.     I  have  long  been  familiar  with  the  critical  problem, 

and  written  not  a  little  on  the  subject.    To  the  recent  assaults 

on  the  '■  prevalent  hypothesis  "  I  have  given  very  considerable 

attention.    When  I  wrote  my  review  of  Dr.  Skinner's  book  I 

was  perfectly  familiar  with  the  articles  of  Schlogl  and  others 

in  the  Expository  Times.     Since  reading  the  correspondence, 

I  have  refreshed  my  knowledge  of  Schlogl's  argument,  and 

still  fail  to  see  how  so  violent  a  cutting  of  the  knot  can  be 

held  to  solve  a  problem  which  involves  very  much  more  than 

mere  alternation  of  the  Divine  names  in  Genesis.   On  Schlogl's 

critical  principles,  indeed,  one  might  prove  or  disprove  any 

given    hypothesis    at    will.     The    modern    commentator    on 

"  Genesis  "  has  such  a  mass  of  really  important  matter  to  deal 

with,  that  he  may  surely  be  permitted  to  pass  over  in  silence 

"  evidence  "  that  seems  to  him  to  have  no  vital  bearing  on  the 
114 


The  Higher  Critical  Quandary  115 

case,  without  being  compelled  to  face  charges  of  "  suppres- 
sion of  facts,  suggestion  of  falsehood,  ignoring  of  arguments." 
I  shall  be  glad  if  you  insert  this  disclaimer  in  some  forth- 
coming number  of  the  Bibliotheca  Sacra. 
Yours  faithfully, 

Alex.  R.  Gordon. 

from  mr.  wiener 
By  the  courtesy  of  the  editor  I  have  been  able  to  see  Dr. 
Gordon's  letter  before  its  publication.  I  need  only  point  out 
that  it  leaves  my  charges  absolutely  untouched.  I  never  ac- 
cused Dr.  Skinner  of  deceit  for  not  mentioning  Schlogl's 
argument:  I  charged  him  with  deceit  for  having  represented 
to  his  readers  (1)  that  there  were  not  more  than  50  variants 
in  Genesis,  and  (2)  that  the  Septuagintal  variants  could  all 
be  due  to  intra-Greek  causes  when  to  his  knowledge  both 
these  representations  were  false.  If  Dr.  Gordon  is  prepared 
to  say  that  he  disbelieved  Dr.  Skinner's  representations  on 
these  points  when  he  read  them,  then  he  was  neither  misled 
nor  deceived:  but  if  (as  I  think  his  Expositor  article  proves) 
he  in  fact  believed  them,  then  I  fear  he  tvas  deceived.  But  this 
much  I  should  like  to  add.  In  my  opinion  Dr.  Gordon  was 
entitled  to  suppose  that  Dr.  Skinner  was  telling  the  truth,  the 
whole  truth  and  nothing  but  the  truth:  and  I  > need  scarcely 
say  that  far  from  thinking  that  Dr.  Gordon's  acting  on  this 
supposition  in  any  way  casts  a  slur  on  him'  it  was  the  natural 
thing  for  him  to  do  without  troubling  at  the  time  to  re- 
fresh his  memory  as  to  my  articles.  It  was  because  Dr. 
Gordon  was  so  manifestly  an  honest  and  competent  writer  on 
the  subject  that  I  felt  compelled  to  take  action  in  the  matter. 
Dr.  Gordon's  honesty  and  competence  are  the  measure  of  Dr. 
Skinner's  intellectual  dishonesty. 


]16  Pentateuchal  Studies 

I  take  this  opportunity  of  reminding  Dr.  Gordon  that  in 
spite  of  "  the  very  considerable  attention  "  he  has  given  to 
"  recent  assaults  on  the  prevalent  hypothesis,"  neither  he  nor 
anybody  ejse  has  yet  ventured  to  deal  with  the  other  points 
made  in  my  Expositor  reply  to  him  —  the  original  date  of 
Gen.  X.  19,  the  practice  of  non-sacrificial  slaughter  in  Israel 
long  before  the  various  critical  dates  for  Deuteronomy,  and 
the  inability  of  Wellhausen  and  his  followers  to  distinguish 
between  a  mound  and  a  house  as  the  basis  of  the  prevalent 
reconstruction  of  the  history. 

Harold  M.  Wiener. 

8  September  1911. 

from  dr.  gordon 

Presbyterian  College, 
Montreal,  Sept.  21,  1911. 
The  Editor,  Bibliotheca  Sacra. 
Dear  Sir: — 

I  am  obliged  to  you  for  your  kindness  in  sending  me  a 
copy  of  Mr.  Wiener's  letter  before  publication.  I  cannot  how- 
ever allow  my  "  honesty  "  to  be  made  the  measure  of  Dr. 
Skinner's  "  dishonesty."  In  the  matter  in  question,  we  both 
occupy  the  common  ground  of  scholarship.  As  I  said  before, 
the  modern  commentator  has  such  a  mass  of  really  important 
matter  to  deal  with,  that  he  must  necessarily  exercise  a  wise 
discretion.  This  applies  to  his  citation  of  variants  from  the 
Versions  as  well  as  to  references  to  literary  authorities.  Some 
of  these  are  valuable :  but  many  more  are  mere  phenomena  of 
greater  or  less  interest.  The  latter  group  the  textual  critic 
will  pass  over  without  any  necessary  mention.  Dr.  Skinner 
has  cited  the  Septuagintal  variants  in  Genesis  as  registered 
by   so  careful   students  of  the   Septuagint   as   Redpath  and 


The  Higher  Critical  Quandary  117 

Eerdmans.  Mr.  Wiener  adduces  a  further  "  enormous  num- 
ber of  passages,"  where  "  some  Septuagintal  authority  differs 
from  the  ordinary  LXX.  reading."  Dr.  Skinner  does  not 
recognise  these  latter  variants  as  sufficiently  authenticated  or 
important  to  enter  into  the  question.  In  arriving  at  that 
opinion,  and  acting  on  it,  he  is  just  as  entitled  to  be  called 
"  honest "  as  one  who  urges  the  importance  of  the  whole 
list.  The  question  is  really  one  of  opinion,  or  critical  judg- 
ment, not  of  "  honesty."  And  one  cannot  but  regret  that  Mr. 
Wiener  continues  to  press  his  charges  against  so  simple,  sin- 
cere, and  absolutely  candid  a  man  as  Dr.  Skinner. 
Yours  faithfully, 

Alex.  R.  Gordon. 

from  mr.  wiener 

I  have  carefully  read  Dr.  Gordon's  letter,  but  fail  to  see 
that  he  has  a  single  word  to  say  with  regard  to  the  other 
pomts  I  made  against  him  in  the  Expositor. '  Is  he  unable  to 
produce  any  reply  at  all?  Or  does  he  think  it  immaterial 
whether  the  results  of  the  Wellhausen  school  are  correct  to 
within  a  thousand  years  or  so,  and  whether  or  not  their  main 
theory  rests  on  nothing  more  substantial  than  their  inability 
to  distinguish  between  a  mound  and  a  house? 

Turning  to  the  question  of  Dr.  Skinner  everybody  must 
sympathise  with  the  motives  that  prompt  Dr.  Gordon,  but 
such  sympathy  must  not  allow  us  to  condone  a  deliberate  at- 
tempt to  deceive  the  public.  In  my  former  reply  I  pointed 
out  that  I  had  "  charged  Dr.  Skinner  with  deceit  for  having 
represented  to  his  readers  (1-)  that  there  were  not  more  than 
50  variants  in  Genesis,  and  (2)  that  the  Septuagintal  variants 
could  all  be  due  to  intra-Greek  causes  when  to  his  knowledge 
both  these  representations  were  false."     On  the  second  point 


118  Pentatenchal  Studies 

Dr.  Gordon  says  nothing  at  all.  I  therefore  challenge  him 
to  answer  the  following  direct  question  with  a  plain  "  aye  "  or 
"no":  '  (a)  Did  he  believe  Dr.  Skinner's  representations  on 
the  point  when  he  read  them?  If  he  did  believe  them,  then 
he  was  deceived,  for  to  deceive  only  means  to  procure  an  in- 
nocent person  to  believe  a  representation  which  is  false  to  the 
knowledge  of  the  person  who  procures  the  belief. 

On  the  first  point  however  Dr.  Gordon  attempts  to  argue 
the  question.  According  to  him  "  Dr.  Skinner  does  not  recog- 
nise variants  other  than  those  registered  by  Redpath  or  Eerd- 
mans  as  sufficiently  authenticated  or  important  to  enter  into 
the  question."  That  this  is  untrue  is  shown  by  the  fact  that 
Dr.  Skinner  himself  has  in  another  context  actually  adopted 
a  Syriac  reading  that  is  not  registered  by  Redpath  or  Eerd- 
mans.  Next,  as  even  Dr.  Skinner's  own  general  editor  ob- 
serves, "  neither  Redpath's  nor  Eerdmans'  list  is  exact " 
[Driver,  Genesis,  8th  ed.,  p.  XLIV,  note].  Again  if  Dr.  Gor- 
don will  read  the  contributions  of  Redpath  and  Eerdmans,  he 
will  see  that  neither  of  them  has  used  Lucian  or  the  evidence 
of  Field's  Hexapla  as  to  the  original  readings  of  the  Septua- 
gint  as  found  by  Origen.  Will  he  venture  to  say  that  any 
competent  scholar  could  honestly  reject  either  the  one  or  the 
other  as  "  not  sufficiently  authenticated  or  important  "  ?  Nor 
again  is  it  true  to  say  that  "  the  question  is  really  one  of 
opinion  or  critical  judgment,"  for  Dr.  Skinner  put  it  forward 
as  a  question  of  fact.  His  argument  was  that  while  the  facts 
adduced  by  a  number  of  writers  of  whom  I  was  one,  imported 
an  element  of  uncertainty  into  the  analysis,  the  significance  of 
the  facts  was  greatly  overrated.  He  then  alleged  that  so  far 
as  he  had  observed  no  attention  was  paid  to  the  proportion  of 
divergences  to  agreements  as  between  LXX  and  M.T.,  that 
the  Divine  names  occurred  about  340  times  in  Genesis,  that 


The  Higher  Critical  Quandary  119 

the  total  deviations  registered  by  Redpath  numbered  50  while 
according  to  Eerdmans  they  were  49  i.e.  little  more  than  one- 
seventh  of  the  whole.  He  then  proceeded :  "  Is  it  so  certain 
that  that  degree  of  divergence  invalidates  a  documentary 
analysis  founded  on  so  much  larger  a  field  of  undisputed 
readings  ?  * '  I  therefore  challenge  Dr.  Gordon  to  answer  the 
following  direct  .questions  also  with  a  plain  '  aye '  or  '  no ' : 
(b)  Did  he  when  he  read  these  representations  believe  (i)  that 
the  facts  adduced  by  the  writers  of  whom  I  was  one  were  lim- 
ited to  at  most  50  passages  in  Genesis;  (ii)  that  I  had  over- 
looked the  proportion  of  divergences  to  agreements  or  that 
Dr.  Skinner  had  reasonable  cause  to  suppose  that  I  had  over- 
looked it;  and  (iii)  that  save  in  little  more  than  one-seventh 
of  the  whole  number  of  occurrences  the  readings  were  "  un- 
disputed"? If  Dr.  Gordon  can  answer  questions  (a)  and  (b) 
in  the  negative,  he  is  entitled  to  say  that  he  cannot  allow  his 
honesty  to  be  made  the  measure  of  Dr.  Skinner's  dishonesty; 
but  not  otherwise. 

Two  other  points  made  by  Dr.  Gordon  must  be  shortly  no- 
ticed. He  says  with  truth  that  the  modern  commentator  has 
such  a  mass  of  really  important  matter  to  deal  with  that  he 
must  exercise  a  wise  discretion.  That  however  does  not  jus- 
tify him  in  making  false  representations  on  a  matter  with 
which  in  the  exercise  of  that  wise  discretion  he  decides  to 
deal.  It  is  as  if  in  reply  to  a  charge  that  A  had  lied  on  a 
particular  question,  somebody  were  to  say  'Ah,  but  look  at 
the  mass  of  things  from  among  which  he  had  to  select  topics 
for  conversation ' !  Secondly  Dr.  Gordon  calls  Dr.  Skinner 
"  simple,  sincere  and  absolutely  candid  "  and  regrets  that  I 
should  continue  to  press  my  charges.  Well,  I  will  tell  him 
something  of  my  experience.  I  find  that  the  Wellhausen 
theories  are  supported  by  a  large  number  of  professors  in 


130  Pentateuchal  Studies 

various  parts  of  the  world,  who  have  enormous  power  by  vir- 
tue of  thejr  positions,  the  numbers  of  their  supporters  and  the 
extent  to  which  they  and  their  suppoiters  control  the  general 
and  technical  press.  That  power  is  used  with  the  utmost  un- 
scrupuloiisness  to  prevent  any  opponent  of  theirs  from  getting 
a  fair  hearing  and  to  induce  their  pupils  and  the  general  pub- 
lic to  believe  that  their  theories  are  unchallengeably  true. 
There  are  many  ways  of  being  dishonest,  and  as  a  general 
rule  the  Wellhausen  critics  use  more  caution  than  Dr.  Skin- 
ner has  done :  but  with  a  few  striking  exceptions  they  fall  as 
far  short  of  the  standards  of  conduct  observed  by  honorable 
laymen  as  does  Dr.  Skinner  himself.  As  a  result  I  have  been 
driven  to  adopt  the  course  that  I  have  followed  in  this  instance 
to  expose  the  methods  by  which  the  Wellhausen  theory  is  main- 
tained. If  Dr.  Gordon  or  any  other  critic  finds  this  plain 
statement  of  fact  unpalatable,  the  remedy  for  this  state  of 
affairs  lies  in  his  own  hands.  Let  him  take  the  works  of  the 
conservative  writers  and  tackle  them  honestly,  grappling  with 
each  point  in  turn,  refuting  it  or  admitting  its  validity  pub- 
licly. Then  and  only  then  will  he  have  a  right  to  pronounce 
an  opinion  as  to  who  is  or  is  not  ''  simple,  sincere,  and  abso- 
lutely candid." 

Harold  M.  Wiener. 
Lincoln's  Inn,  6  October  1911. 

from  dr.  gordon 

Presbyterian  College, 
Montreal,  Nov.  18,  1911. 
The  Editor,    Bibliotheca  Sacra. 

Dear  Sir: — 

I  am  in  receipt  of  yours  of  the  15th,  enclosing  Mr.  Wie- 
nex's  rejoinder  to  my  last  letter. 
•   As   I   entered   this  controversy  punely  to  make  a  personal 


The  Higher  Critical  Quandary  121 

statement,  I  must  respectfully  decline  to  be  drawn  into  a  dis- 
cussion of  the  general  critical  problem  of  the  Pentateuch. 
Further,  I  have  to  observe  that  the  questions  Mr.  Wiener  pro- 
pounds for  me  are  all  based  on  the  gratuitous  assumption  that 
Dr.  Skinner  is  dishonest  because  he  happens  to  differ  from 
Mr.  Wiener  on  what  is  to  be  considered  valid  evidence.  They 
virtually  resolve  themselves  into  this.  Did  I  believe  Dr.  Skin- 
ner to  be  telling  the  truth  when  he  was  really  lying  ?  —  a  ques- 
tion that  can  no  more  be  answered  by  a  simple  "  Yes  "  or 
"  No  "  than  the  old  subtlety  of  the  logic  books,  "  Have  you 
left  ofif  beating  your  mother?"  I  must  content  myself  then 
with  the  general  statement  —  and  with  this  the  correspondence 
must  close,  so  far  as  I  am  concerned  —  that  in  my  judgment 
Dr.  Skinner  has,  within  the  limits  imposed  by  his  Commen- 
tary, given  a  perfectly  fair  presentation  of  the  problems  of 
Genesis,  including  the  relation  between  the  Massoretic  text 
and  the  Versions.  Repeated  study  of  his  work  confirms  me 
in  the  impression  that  he  has  given  all  due  consideration  to 
the  "  facts  "  brought  forward  by  Mr.  Wiener,  and  has  ap- 
praised them  at  their  true  value. 

Yours  faithfully, 

Alex.  R.  Gordon. 

from  mr.  wiener 
Every  reader  will  be  able  to  see  for  himself  that  Dr.  Gor- 
don refuses  to  answer  plain  straightforward  questions,  and 
this  provides  a  fresh  example  —  this  time  in  public  —  of  the 
methods  by  which  it  is  sought  to  maintain  the  current  critical 
theories.  For  myself  1  confess  that  I  am  disappointed,  but 
not  in  the  least  surprised.  Dr.  Gordon's  methods  can  of 
course  make  no  difference  to  the  triumph  of  truth :  but  it  ap- 
pears to  me  that  they  reveal  a  lamentable  state  of  affairs. 


]22  Peiitateuchal  Studies 

For  what  are  the  questions  about  Dr.  Skinner  that  Dr.  Gor- 
don refuses  to  answer  in  response  to  my  challenge?  They 
are  these: — (a)  Did  Dr.  Gordon  believe  Dr.  Skinner's  repre- 
sentations that  the  Septuagintal  variants  could  all  be  due  to 
intra-Greek  causes  when  he  (Dr.  Gordon)  read  them? 

(b)  Did  Dr.  Gordon  when  he  read  Dr.  Skinner's  represen- 
tations as  to  the  number  of  variants  in  Genesis  believe  (i)  that 
the  facts  adduced  by  the  writers  of  whom  I  was  one  were 
limited  to  at  most  50  passages  in  Genesis,  (ii)  that  I  had 
overlooked  the  proportion  of  divergences  to  agreements  or 
that  Dr.  Skinner  had  reasonable  cause  to  suppose  that  I  had 
overlooked  it.  and  (iii)  that  save  in  little  more  than  one- 
seventh  of  the  whole  number  of  occurrences  the  readings  were 
"  undisputed  "  ? 

I  asked  Dr.  Gordon  whether  he  believed  Dr.  Skinner,  noth- 
ing more :  I  did  not  ask  him  whether  he  believed  Dr.  Skinner 
to  be  telling  the  truth  when  he  was  really  lying :  for  Dr.  Skin- 
ner's mendacity  had  been  put  beyond  all  doubt  by  the  earlier 
correspondence  with  the  general  editors :  and  the  point  at 
issue  with  Dr.  Gordon  was  simply  whether  the  latter  had  be- 
lieved the  statements  which  had  been  proved  false  and  so  been 
deceived.  Dr.  Gordon's  only  reply  is  to  say  in  effect  "  I  can 
no  more  answer  '  yes  '  or  '  no  '  to  questions  whether  I  believed 
Dr.  .Skinner's  statements  when  I  read  them  than  I  can  answer 
'  yes  '  or  '  no  '  to  the  question  '  Have  you  left  off  beating  your 
mother?'"     Qui  est-ce  qu'on  trompe  ici? 

Dr.  Gordon  has  of  course  rendered  a  very  real  service  to 
the  cause  of  truth  by  making  it  quite  plain  that  he  dare  not 
commit  himself  to  a  statement  that  he  believed  Dr.  Skinner. 
Whether  he  has  also  rendered  Dr.  Skinner  or  his  general  ed- 
itors any  real  service  thereby  is  a'  question  that  I  do  not  feel 
called  upon  to  discuss:  and  I  leave  my  readers  to  form  their 


The  Higher  Critical  Quandary  123 

own  judgments  on  the  fitness  of  professors  who  act  as  these 
critics  have  done  to  be  entrusted  with  the  education  of  youth. 
Some  things  are  too  plain  to  need  emphasising. 

I  should  be  sorry  to  lose  this  opportunity  of  once  more  re- 
minding Dr.  Gordon  that  he  has  as  yet  totally  failed  to  pro- 
duce any  reply  to  the  points  I  put  to  him  over  a  year  ago 
during  the  intervals  of  leisure  in  which  he  was  not  engaged 
in  making  personal  statements.  As  I  pointed  out  in  my  first 
communication  those  points  are  the  original  date  of  Gen.  x.  19, 
the  practice  of  non-sacrificial  slaughter  in  Israel  long  before 
the  various  critical  dates  for  Deuteronomy,  and  the  inability 
of  Wellhausen  and  his  followers  to  distinguish  between  a 
mound  and  a  house  as  the  basis  of  the  prevalent  reconstruc- 
tion of  history.  What  shall  be  said  of  men  who  propagate 
views  the  correctness  of  which  to  within  a  thousand  years 
they  are  unable  to  defend  ? 

Harold  M.  Wiener. 

Lincoln's  Inn,  29  November  1911. 


XI 


SOME  ASPECTS  OF  THE  CONSERVATIVE  TASK  IN 
PENTATEUCHAL  CRITICISM  (II) 

[From   the  Bihiiotheca  Sacra,   April.   1912.] 

In  the  Bibliotheca  Sacra  for  January,  1911,  the  present 
writer  discussed  "  Some  Aspects  of  the  Conservative  Task  in 
Pentateuchal  Criticism.''  ^  The  object  of  the  present  paper  is 
to  consider  these  further  in  the  light  of  what  has  occurred 
since  that  article  was  written.  It  cannot  be  contended  that  the 
conditions  of  the  problem  are  unaltered  or  that  no  new  light 
has  been  thrown  on  the  duty  of  conservatives  by  what  has 
happened  in  the  interval. 

It  may  first  be  observed  that,  whether  we  look  at  the  lights 
or  the  shadows  of  the  picture,  conservatism  has  made  progress. 
There  is  more  and  better  conservative  literature  in  the  world 
than  before.  The  emergence  of  Mr.  J.  S.  Griffiths  as  a  new 
conservative  writer  is  a  most  cheering  sign  of  the  times.  His 
excellent  "  Problem  of  Deuteronomy  "  is  a  welcome  addition 
to  the  literature  of  the  subject,  and  strengthens  the  position 
of  conservatives  throughout  the  English-speaking  world.  Dr. 
W  St.  Clair  Tisdall  has  published  an  admirable  brochure 
entitled  "  Why  I  am  Not  a  Higher  Critic,"  which  has  been 
warmly  received  in  more  than  one  country.  The  Jewish  Quar- 
terly Review,  formerly  an  organ  of  the  higher  criticism,  ,has 
been  converted  to  sane  and  sober  views  on  biblical  scholar- 
ship, and  is  now  conducted  with  a  learning  and  an  ability  that 
bid  fair  to  make  it  one  of  the  most  valuable  of  theological 
periodicals  to  all  who  are  interested  in  Old  Testament  Studies : 
^  See  supra,  No.  1. 
124 


Fentatcnchal  Criticism  125 

it  is  not  the  only  periodical  that  has  shown  signs  of  turning 
from  the  higher  critical  vagaries.  In  Germany,  too,  indi- 
cations of  change  from  the  fashionable  hypothesis  are  not 
wanting.  Pastor  W.  Moller  has  at  last  broken  with  the  docu- 
mentary theory ;  and  though  his  book  "  Wider  den  Bann  der 
Quellenscheidung "  may  at  first  shock  the  delicate  sensibili- 
ties of  those  who  hold  that  orthodoxy  consists  in  the  unques- 
tioning acceptance  of  a  theory  that  makes  the  Pentateuch  a 
cento  of  literary  forgeries,  it  cannot  in  the  long  run  fail  to 
assist  in  shaking  the  position  which  that  theory  now  occupies 
in  the  Universities  of  Northern  Europe.^  Here,  too,  mention 
should  be  made  of  Dr.  Aage  Schmidt's  "  Gedanken  iiber  die 
Entwicklung  der  Religion  auf  Grund  der  babylonischen  Quel- 
len,"  2  a  monograph  that  is  distinguished  by  the  conservative 
results  to  which  a  comprehensive  survey  of  the  ancient  evi- 
dence as  to  religious  development  has  led  the  learned  author. 
The  true  weakness  of  conservatives  does  not  lie  in  any  inher- 
ent difficulties  of  the  conservative  case  or  in  any  faults  of  its 
champions.  On  the  contrary,  they  possess  the  qualities  that  are 
necessary  for  the  vindication  of  their  views.  They  have  the 
learning;  they  have  the  ability;  more  important  than  either, 
they  have  the  strength  of  character.  Unfortunately  —  and  it 
is  here  that  their  whole  difficulty  lies  —  they  have  not  the 
necessary  organization,  though  in  this  respect  they  are  rap- 

*  Since  the  above  was  written,  a  Dutcti  scholar,  Dr,  A.  Troelstra, 
has  published  a  brilliant  and  successful  piece  of  work  "  De  Organ- 
ische  Eenheid  van  het  Oude  Testament"  (Leiden:  A.  L.  Vlieger, 
1912).  It  is  an  inaugural  lecture  delivered  to  the  Leyden  students. 
An  English  translation  appeared  in  the  Bibliotheca  Sacra  for  July, 
1912.  With  Eerdmans  and  Troelstra  both  lecturing  at  the  premier 
Dutch  University,  the  prospects  of  the  documentary  theory  in  Hol- 
land are  not  of  the  rosiest. 

'Leipzig,   1911. 


126  Pentateuchal  Studies 

idly  improving.  Not  so  very  long  ago  the  lack  of  inter- 
communication between  the  conservative  scholars  of  various 
countries  and  creeds  was  extremely  striking;  and  though 
there  is  a  growing  tendency  to  remedy  this,  the  evil  effects 
of  the  state  of  affairs  that  long  prevailed  have  not  yet  passed 
away.  The  fault  does  not  lie  with  the  conservatives.  It  is 
due  to  the  control  exercised  over  almost  the  whole  of  the 
technical  press  in  the  various  countries  by  the  higher  critics. 
Hereafter  I  shall  have  to  speak  of  the  darker  aspects  of  the 
higher  critical  tactics,  and  it  will  be  seen  how  that  control 
must  operate  for  the  suppression  of  truth.  Fortunately,  as 
already  stated,  it  is  no  longer  so  complete  as  formerly :  and 
it  cannot  be  doubted  that,  as  conservatism  obtains  a  hearing, 
the  higher  critical  positions  will  be  seen,  by  increasingly  large 
numbers  of  people,  to  be  untenable.  The  rate  of  progress 
made  in  the  diffusion  of  sounder  ideas  is  cumulative. 

Side  by  side  with  these  phenomena  is  the  important  fact  that 
many  lifelong  critics  are  becoming  exceedingly  doubtful  as 
to  the  soundness  of  their  views.  From  the  nature  of  the  case 
one  hears  more  of  this  in  private  than  in  public,  for  a  critic 
who  becomes  doubtful  as  to  his  position  tends  to  indulge  in 
silent  meditation,  or  private  discussions  with  his  friends, 
rather  than  to  take  the  public  into  his  confidence  with  respect 
to  his  mental  perplexities.  It  must  be  admitted  that  the  habit 
often  has  irritating  tendencies.  A  man  will  write  me  that  he 
is  shaken  on  a  particular  point,  but  without  making  any  public 
statement  or  modifying  his  published  views.  Then  other  peo- 
ple who  know  nothing  of  his  private  admissions  will  proceed 
to  shout  aloud  about  the  assured  results  of  modern  criticism, 
in  reliance  on  those  very  published  views  about  which  their 
author  has  begun  to  entertain  doubts.  That  sort  of  thing  is 
very  annoying.    But,  in  the  case  of  the  more  honest  critics,  it 


Pentalteuchal  Criticism  127 

is  merely  a  transition  stage;  for,  sooner  or  later,  they  must 
give  public  expression  to  the  change  in  their  attitude. 

Unfortunately,  however,  the  limitation  expressed  in  the 
phrase  "  in  the  case  of  the  more  honest  critics  "  is  a  very  nar- 
row one. 

In  showing  this  it  will  be  convenient  to  begin  with  the  case 
of  Dr.  Charles  Augustus  Briggs.  As  stated  in  a  footnote  to 
the  published  correspondence  with  the  general  Editors  of  the 
International  Critical  Commentary,^  I  have  waited  to  deal 
further  with  this,  because  I  wished  to  give  them  an  opportu- 
nity of  exercising  the  right  of  further  reply  which  they  were 
so  careful  to  reserve.  I  did  this,  although  I  realized  at  the 
time  that  they  were  indulging  in  what  is  popularly  called 
bluff,  and  I  have  no  doubt  that  anybody  who  will  carefully 
and  impartially  examine  the  facts  that  I  am  about  to  quote 
will  see  that  this  was  so. 

Under  date  the  28th  of  February,  1911,  Doctors  Briggs  and 
Driver  wrote  to  me  as  follows :  "  We  have  both  been  familiar 
with  the  Septuagint  for  many  years,  and  have  compared  large 
parts  of  it  very  minutely  with  the  Massoretic  text.  As  the 
result  of  this  comparison  we  both  hold  that,  where  the  two 
differ,  the  Massoretic  text  is  to  be  preferred  until  the  reading 
presupposed  by  the  Septuagint  has  been  shown  to  be  superior 
to  it,  especially  by  yielding  a  sense  in  better  agreement  with 
the  context  or  by  being  preferable  upon  philological  or  gram- 
matical grounds.  ...  In  such  expressions  as  these  we  have 
proposed  no  novel  doctrine,  but  we  only  voice  the  general 
judgment  of  sober  modern  scholars.  .  .  .  We  cannot,  there- 
fore, consistently  with  these  principles,  formed  long  ago, 
without  any  reference  to  the  present  controversy,  admit  that 
a  variant  reading  presupposed  either  by  all  or  by  some  MSS. 
1  See  supra,   p.   104. 


128  Pentateiichal  Studies 

of  the  Septuagint,  possesses  any  value  as  against  the  Masso- 
retic  text,  or  even  casts  doubt  upon  the  Massoretic  text  until 
good  cause  has  been  shown  for  preferring  it."  These  extracts 
contain  the  main  reason  for  the  inability  of  the  general  ed- 
itors to  discuss  the  scholarly  part  of  my  contentions,  because, 
in  truth  and  in  fact,  they  are  absolutely  contradicted  by  the 
published  writings  of  Dr.  Briggs  himself  and  of  those  whom 
the  general  editors  have  regarded  as  sufficiently  sober  modem 
scholars  to  be  intrusted  with  the  preparation  of  volumes  of 
the  International  Critical  Commentary. 

First,  as  to  Dr.  Briggs  himself:  In  the  year  1899  he  pub- 
lished a  work  entitled  '"'  General  Introduction  to  the  Study  of 
Holy  Scripture:  The  Principles,  Methods,  History,  and  Re- 
sults of  its  Several  Departments  and  of  the  Whole."  The  pref- 
ace explains  that  in  1883  another  volume  had  appeared,  entitled 
"  Biblical  Study,  its  Principles,  Methods,  and  History,  together 
with  a  Catalogue  of  Books  of  Reference,"  and  that  the  "  Gen- 
eral Introduction  "  is  a  new  book  incorporating  the  material 
of  the  earlier  work,  which  in  its  turn  had  gathered  up  the 
work  of  the  preceding  fourteen  years.  Thus  the  "  General 
Introduction  "  is  the  product  of  thirty  years  of  work  at  the 
subjects  with  which  it  deals,  and  must  be  held  to  incorporate 
"  principles  formed  long  ago  without  any  reference  to  the  pres- 
ent controversy."  It  would  be  impossible  to  contradict  the 
doctrines  laid  down  in  the  joint  letter  more  thoroughly  than 
is  done  by  Dr.  Briggs  in  this  work  and  in  his  Commentary  on 
the  Psalms. 

The  following  extracts  will  give  a  pretty  clear  idea  of  his 
real  position : — 

"  There  can  be  no  doubt  that  Rabbi  Akiba  and  his  asso- 
ciates at  Jamnia  not  only  fixed  the  Canon  of  the  Old  Testa- 
ment, but  also  established  the  first  official  Hebrew  text  of  the 


Pentateiichal  Criticism  129, 

Canon.  There  is  a  fixture  in  the  consonantal  text  of  Hebrew 
Manuscripts  from  the  second  century  onwards,  which  can  be 
accounted  for  only  by  the  establishment  at  that  time  of  such 
an  official  text.  This  text  was  established  in  troublous  times, 
when  it  zvas  impossible  to  give  the  time  and  painstaking 
required  for  such  an  undertaking.  There  zvas  no  leisure  to 
correct  even  the  plainest  mistakes.  It  zvas  made  by  the  com- 
parison of  a  fezv  manuscripts.  Tradition  speaks  of  three,  in 
cases  of  disagreement  the  majority  of  two  always  determin- 
ing- the  correct  reading"^   (General  Introduction,  p.  175). 

"  The  Textual  Criticism  of  the  Old  Testament  lagged  be- 
hind the  Nezv  Testament.  And  the  reason  of  it  is,  that  schol- 
ars long  hesitated  to  go  back  of  the  Massoretic  text.  .  .  .  There 
can  be  no  doubt,  as  Robertson  Smith  states:  '  It  has  gradually, 
become  clear  to  the  vast  majority  of  conscientious  students 
that  the  Septuagint  is  really  of  the  greatest  value  as  a  zmtness. 
to  the  early  state  of  the  text' "  '^  {op.  cit.,  p.  229). 

"  The  study  of  the  text  of  the  Old  Testament  has  been  ad- 
vanced in  recent  years  by  a  great  number  of  scholars  in  Ger- 
many, France,  Switzerland,  Holland,  Austria,  Italy,  Great 
Britain,  and  America;  scholars  of  all  faiths,  Jew  and  Chris- 
tian, Roman  Catholic  and  Protestant.  They  have  vied  with 
one  another  in  this  fundamental  work  of  biblical  study.  It 
has  nozv  become  practically  impossible  for  any  scholarly  zvork 
to  be  done  on  the  Old  Testament  zvithout  the  use  of  all  the 
resources  of  Textual  Criticism  for  a  sure  foundation"  '^  (op. 
cit.,  p.  230). 

"  The  next  step  in  Textual  Criticism  is  to  ascertain  the 
original  autographs  of  the  Canon  of  the  Law  and  the  Prophets, 
when  they  were  first  collected  and  fixed.  The  Septuagint  ver- 
sion of  the  Lazv  and  the  Prophets,  and  possibly  also  of  some 
^My  italics. 


130  Pentateuchal  Studies 

of  the  zvritings,  takes  us  back  of  the  Maccabcan  text"^  (op. 
cit.,  p.  238). 

Dr.  Briggs  has,  moreover,  contributed  to  the  International 
Critical  Commentary  a  work  on  the  Psalter  (dated  1906). 
The  preface  contains  the  following  remarks  that  appear  to  be 
material  to  any  consideration  of  the  textual  opinions  expressed 
in  the  body  of  the  work :  "  This  commentary  is  the  fruit  of 
forty  years  of  labour.  ...  I  have  spared  no  pains  upon  the 
text  of  the  Psalter,  not  only  in  the  study  of  the  Versions,  but 
also  in  the  detection  and  elimination  of  the  glosses  in  the 
search  for  the  original  texts  as  they  came  from  their  authors. 
...  A  public  Version,  in  my  opinion,  should  be  less  pedantic 
and  literal  than  the  Revised  Version,  and  not  so  slavish  in  its 
adherence  to  the  Massoretic  text}  In  this  respect  the  older 
Versions,  especially  the  Version  of  the  Book  of  Common 
Prayer,  is  [sic  H.  M.  W.]  to  be  preferred;  for  while  it  is 
less  accurate  than  the  later  Versions,  it  preserves  many  read- 
ings of  the  Greek  and  Vulgate  Versions  which  later  English 
Versions  unwisely  rejected." 

I  proceed  to  quote  some  of  the  relevant  dicta  of  this 
work : — • 

"  The  earliest  Version  of  the  Psalter  zvas  that  of  the  Greek 
Septuagint,  translated  from  the  Hebrezv  in  the  second  cen- 
tury B.C.  at  Alexandria,  and  preserved  in  many  ancient  codices, 
the  earliest  of  the  fourth  century  a.d.,  giving  evidence  as  to 
an  original  Hebrezv  text,  many  centuries  prior  to  any  Hebrezv 
authorities"^  (p.  xxv). 

"  It  was  made  from  the  best  MSS.  accessible  at  the  time, 
and  gives  evidence  as  to  the  original  Hebrezv  text  of  early  sec- 
ond century  B.C.,  three  centuries  earlier  than  the  text  fixed  by 
the  school  of  Jamnia,  and  tzvelve  centuries  earlier  than  the 
^  My   italics.  ''Dr.   Briggs's  italics. 


Pentateuchal  Criticism  131 

Mass.  text  as  fixed  by  Ben  Asher  and  preserved  in  the  earliest 
Hebrew  codd."  ^  (ibid.). 

"  The  text  of  the  LXX  where  there  is  a  consensus  of  read- 
ings has  a  value  zvhich  has  not  been  estimated  by  critics  as 
highly  as  it  ought  to  be,  so  far  as  the  Psalter  is  concerned.  In 
a  very  large  number  of  cases  this  common  text  is  to  be  pre- 
ferred to  the  Hebrezv  consonantal  text"  ^  (p.  xxviii). 

"  The  text  of  the  LXX  carries  us  still  farther  back,  to  a 
Hebrew  text  of  the  second  century  B.C.,  very  soon  after  the 
Psalter  had  received  its  final  editing"  (p.  xxxiii). 

"  The  divine  names  were  inserted  very  often  in  order  to 
make  it  evident  that  God  ivas  the  subject  or  object  of  the 
verb  "  ^  (p.  liii). 

"  In  a  very  large  number  of  instances  the  ancient  Versions, 
especially  the  LXX  and  Vulgate,  are  more  correct  than  the 
unpointed  Hebrezv   text.     Modern  scholars  have  greatly 

ERRED  IN  A  TOO  EXALTED  ESTIMATE  OF  THE  CORRECTNESS  OF 
THE  UNPOINTED  HEBREW  TEXT  IN  THIS  REGARD.  ThE  MEAS- 
URES MAKE  IT  EVIDENT  THAT  EVEN  THE  UNPOINTED  HEBREW 
TEXT,  BY  ITS  NUMEROUS  ADDITIONS  AND  CHANGES  OF  THE  OR- 
IGINAL, IS  AS  TRULY  AN  INTERPRETATION  OF  AN  OLDER  TEXT 
AS  THE  LXX  AND  OTHER  ANCIENT  VERSIONS  "   (ibid.). 

Further  down  on  the  same  page  we  are  told  that  not  infre- 
quently both  Elohim  and  Adonay  "  appear  as  a  conflation  of 
the  original  text."  I  think  I  have  quoted  enough  to  show  that 
Dr.  Briggs,  at  any  rate,  is  in  no  case  to  put  forward  any  vindi- 
cation of  either  Dr.  Skinner  or  himself,  and  that  in  this  con*- 
troversy  he  has  taken  a  part  which  is  inconsistent  with  the 
elements  of  truthfulness  and  honor.  So  far  as  he  is  con- 
cerned, the  statements  about  "  the  principles  formed  long 
ago  "  were  a  tissue  of  falsehoods.  We  shall  now  see  that  he 
^  My  italics.  *  My  italics  and  capitals. 


132  Pentateuchal  Studies 

does  not  stand  alone  in  rejecting  the  preposterous  doctrines 
that  he  falsely  professes  to  accept  in  the  correspondence.  I 
begin  by  quoting  Professor  Toy,  the  author  of  the  volume  on 
Proverbs  in  the  International  Critical  Commentary.  In  his 
case  we  are  happily  dealing  with  an  honorable  man.  On 
p.  xxxii  of  the  work  he  writes :  "  Of  these  the  oldest  and,  for 
the  criticism  of  the  text,  the  most  valuable  is  the  Septuagint. 
It  represents  in  general  an  older  text  than  that  of  the  re- 
ceived Hebrew  tradition."  As  he  was  not  prepared  to  sacri- 
fice his  convictions  on  the  altar  of  the  documentary  theory, 
Dr.  Toy,  in  reviewing  my  "  Essays  in  Pejitateuchal  Criti- 
cism," wrote  as  follows :  "  Several  writers  have  recently 
dwelt  on  the  fact  that  the  Septuagint  and  other  ancient  Ver- 
sions differ  considerably  from  the  received  Hebrew  text  (the 
Masoretic)  in  the  use  of  divine  names.  .  .  .  The  Septuagint 
translators,  it  is  commonly  supposed,  followed  their  Hebrew 
text  faithfully,  and  this  text  is  equally  authoritative  with  the 
Masoretic  (in  both  cases  internal  evidence  must  decide  as  to 
the  value  of  readings)  :  it  is  concluded  that  the  latter  is  not 
a  trustworthy  guide  for  a  division  of  documents  based  on 
divine  names,  and  this  is  Mr.  Wiener's  contention.  While 
this  point  calls  for  a  more  thorough  examination  than  has 
yet  been  given  it,  the  conclusion  just  stated  is  not  out  of  keep- 
ing with  the  tone  of  modern  criticism.  As  is  well  known, 
critics  generally  hold  that  our  Hebrew  text  has  suffered 
greatly  from  scribes  and  editors  in  the  process  of  transmis- 
sion. It  is  agreed  that  divine  names  have  beejj  changed  in 
Chronicles,  Psalms  and  elsewhere,  why  not  in  the  Penta- 
teuch ?  "  ^  Dr.  Toy,  it  will  be  seen,  is  not  prepared  to  contra- 
dict the  lifelong  principles  of  Dr.  Briggs  and  himself  on 
textual  Criticism  for  the  sake  of  the  documentary  theory. 
'Christian  Register,  April  28,  1910,  p.  455. 


Pentateuchal  Criticism  133 

And  yet  he  is  a  man  who  suffered  for  his  conscientious  beliefs 
when  it  appeared  to  him  that  the  higher  criticism  was  true. 
My  authority  is  Dr.  Briggs,  and  I  quote  the  account  he  gives 
in  the  General  Introduction  that  I  have  already  cited  so  often. 
"  The  first  to  suffer  for  the  Higher  Criticism  in  the  United 
States  was  C.  H.  Toy,  who  was  Professor  of  Old  Testament 
Interpretation  in  the  Baptist  Theological  School,  at  Green- 
ville. S.  C,  from  1869  to  1879.  In  the  latter  year  he  was 
forced  to  resign  because  of  his  views  as  to  Biblical  Criticism  " 
(p.  286).  As  he  was  the  first  in  the  United  States  to  suffer 
for  his  Higher  Critical  views,  so  has  he  been  the  first  to  admit 
that  those  views  might  be  unfounded.  Amicus  Plato,  magis 
arnica  Veritas. 

Similarly  with  Dr.  H.  P.  Smith,  from  whose  pen  comes  the 
volume  on  Samuel  in  the  International  Critical  Commentary. 
He  writes:  "  In  the  absence  of  light  from  the  MSS.  we  must 
seek  the  help  of  the  ancient  versions.  And  among  these  the 
Greek  easily  takes  the  first  place,  owing  to  its  age  and  to  the 
fact  that  it  had  a  Hebrew  original  very  different  from  the  one 
known  to  us.  If  we  had  the  LXX  in  its  earliest  form,  it  would 
be  equivalent  to  a  Hebrew  codex  of  the  first  Christian  cen- 
tury, or  even  of  earlier  date"  (Samuel,  p.  xxxi).  In  accord- 
ance with  this.  Dr.  Smith  has  publicly  stated  that  the  work  of 
Professors  Eerdmans  and  Schlogl  and  of  the  present  writer 
necessitate  a  careful  reexamination  of  the  whole  field  of  text- 
ual and  historical  Criticism.^  Dr.  Smith,  too,  according  to 
the  same  repertory  of  convenient  information,  was  one  of  the 
first  to  suffer  for  his  critical  views.  Dr.  Briggs  writes :  "  The 
discussion  of  the  Higher  Criticism  in  the  United  States  began 

» Journal  of  Biblical  Literature,  vol.  xxx.  (1910)  p.  19,  note. 
See  also  his  statement  in  the  text :  "  Each  year  we  have  the  neces- 
sity forced  upon  us  to  learn  something  new  and  to  unlearn  some 
of  the  things  we  had  supposed  settled." 


134  Pentateuchal  Studies 

for  the  Presbyterian  body,  in  the  plea  for  freedom  of  criticism 
in  my  inaugural  address  as  Professor  of  Hebrew  in  the  Union 
Theological  Seminary,  N.  Y.,  in  1876.  ...  I  was  sustained  by 
Henry  P.  Smith.  .  .  .  Prof.  Henry  Preserved  Smith  was  tried 
on  similar  grounds.  ...  He  was  also  suspended  from  the  min- 
istry in  the  same  year  by  the  Presbytery  of  Cincinnati,  which 
action  was  sustained  next  year  by  General  Assembly"  (op. 
cit.,  pp.  286-289).  Such  men  as  Doctors  Toy  and  Smith 
must  command  the  respect  and  admiration  of  supporters  and 
opponents  alike. 

It  is  noticeable  that  these  two  men  —  the  two  International 
Critical  Commentators  who  suffered  for  their  beliefs,  but 
were  not  prepared  to  throw  away  their  honor  for  the  sake  of 
the  documentary  theory  —  had  used  far  less  emphatic  expres- 
sions as  to  the  role  of  the  LXX  in  textual  criticism  than  Dr. 
Briggs,  or  even,  as  we  shall  see.  Dr.  Driver  himself. 

One  other  International  Critical  Commentator  must  be 
quoted,  the  late  Dr.  William  Rainey  Harper,  whose  name  is 
affixed  to  certain  papers  on  Pentateuchal  Criticism  that  ap- 
peared in  the  Hehraica,  and  attracted  attention  some  years 
ago.  The  preface  to  his  "Amos  and  Plosea  "  contains  a  polemic 
against  Dr.  Driver  in  the  course  of  which  he  writes :  "  It  is 
unquestionably  the  first  duty  of  a  commentator  to  reconstruct 
the  text  as  best  he  may  "  (Amos  and  Hosea,  preface,  p.  viii). 
Further  on,  in  the  course  of  his  introduction,  he  says  of  the 
LXX :  "  In  the  correction  of  MT,  LXX  is  most  helpful.  .  .  . 
When  due  allowance  is  made  for  the  errors  of  LXX  there 
still  remain  many  passages  in  which  its  text  is  preferable  to 
M.T."  (p.  clxxiv). 

I  come  now  to  Dr.  Driver.  The  attitude  as  to  textual  crit- 
icism assumed  by  the  general  editors  of  the  International 
Critical  Commentary  in  the   letter  of  the  28th  of  February, 


Pcntateuchal  Criticism  135 

1911,  is  more  like  his  general  attitude  than  that  of  Dr.  Briggs. 
But  Dr.  Driver  himself  does  not  altogether  adopt  the  extra- 
ordinary contentions  of  the  letter.  I  have  pointed  out  some 
of  the  ways  in  which  he  differs  from  Dr.  Skinner  (and  conse- 
quently from  the  defense  of  Dr.  Skinner)  in  reviewing  his 
"Additions,  etc.,"  in  the  Bibliotheca  Sacra  for  October, 
1911,  and  also  in  the  second  answer  to  Dr.  Gordon  (supra, 
p.  118).  Perhaps  the  strongest  instance  of  the  divergence 
between  the  Dr.  Driver  of  textual  criticism  and  the  Dr.  Driver 
of  the  joint  letter  is,  however,  to  be  found  on  pages  Hi  f.  of 
his  "  Notes  on  the  Hebrew  Text  of  the  Books  of  Samuel," 
where  he  quotes  and  indorses  Klostermann's  famous  dictum 
"  Let  him  who  would  himself  investigate  and  advance  learn- 
ing, by  the  side  of  the  other  Ancient  Versions  accustom  him- 
self above  all  things  to  the  use  of  Field's  Hexapla,  and 
Lagarde's  edition  of  the  Recension  of  Lucian."  Why  does 
this  principle  suddenly  cease  to  be  valid  when  Dr.  Skinner's 
conduct  comes  up  for  consideration? 

It  must  not  be  thought  that  in  laying  stress  on  the  question 
of  textual  criticism  I  am  urging  a  principle  that  is  rejected  or 
doubted  in  the  case  of  other  ancient  works  that  have  depended 
on  a  MS.  tradition.  On  this  point  let  the  identical  Dr.  Briggs 
speak  in  the  words  he  has  adopted  in  the  work  representing 
the  carefully  matured  convictions  of  so  many  years  which  I 
have  already  had  frequent  occasion  to  quote :  "  Biblical  Textual 
Criticism  derives  from  general  Textual  Criticism  its  principles 
and  methods  of  work.  These  differ  in  their  application  to 
the  Bible  only  as  there  are  special  circumstances  connected 
with  the  biblical  writings  that  differ  from  those  of  other 
writings.  As  Hort  says :  '  The  leading  principles  of  textual 
criticism  are  identical  for  all  writings  whatever.  Differences 
in  application  arise  only  from  differences  in  the  amount,  va- 


136  Pentateuchal  Studies 

riety,  and  quality  of  evidence :  no  method  is  ever  inapplicable 
except  through  defectiveness  of  evidence'"  (General  Intro- 
duction, p.  231). 

Now  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  well-known  rules  of 
textual  criticism  entirely  condemn  the  practice  of  accepting 
readings  on  the  authority  of  any  text  whatever  without  inves- 
tigation. In  proof  of  this  I  need  only  quote,  some  of  the  ob- 
servations made  by  Professor  J.  P.  Postgate  in  the  article  on 
"  Textual  Criticism  "  in  the  eleventh  edition  of  the  Encyclo- 
paedia Britannica.     He  writes  as  follows: — 

"  Where  the  critic  has  ascertained  the  earliest  form  of  a 
reading  in  his  text,  he  will  apply  to  it  the  tests  of  intrinsic 
probability.  No  part  of  a  text  can  be  considered  exempt  from 
this  scrutiny,  though  for  a  very  large  part  of  it  it  may  be  dis- 
pensed with,  h  should,  ho7vever,  he  here  observed,  that  zvho- 
ever  takes  a  reading  without  investigation,  on  the  authority 
either  of  a  manuscript  or  of  a  great  scholar,  or  of  a  number 
of  scholars,  ceases  for  the  time  being  to  be  a  textual  critic  "  ^ 
(vol.  xxvi.  p.  713b). 

"  Illegitimate  doubt  is  the  uncertainty  of  the  doubter  as  to 
whether  he  has  examined  the  whole  of  the  evidence.  Such 
doubt  is  much  more  frequently  felt  than  acknowledged,  and 
its  effect  upon  critical  work  is  highly  injurious.  On  the  one 
hand,  it  is  apt  to  take  refuge  in  an  uncritical  acceptance  of  the 
traditional  readings,  and,  on  the  other  hand,  to  produce  a 
crop  of  hesitant  and  mutually  destructive  conjectures  which 
a  reader  naturally  resents  as  a  needless  waste  of  his  time  "  ^ 
(ibid.,  p.  714a). 

"Authority,  as  already  hinted,  has  properly  no  place  in 
textual  criticism.  For  his  facts  a  textual  critic  may,  and  often 
must,  be  beholden  to  others:  but  never  for  his  opinions.  It 
'  My   italics. 


Pcntatenchal  Criticism  137 

adds  nothing  to  the  evidence  for  a  reading  that  it  has  been 
approved  by  a  Lachmann  or  a  Madvig  or  rejected  by  a  Stoe- 
ber  or  a  Carutti:  and  an  appeal  to  names  on  any  such  ques- 
tion confuses  issues  and  deters  inquiry"  (ibid.,  p.  715b). 

The  net  result  of  all  this  is  to  show,  beyond  any  possibility 
of  doubt,  that  the  general  editors  of  the  International  Crit- 
ical Commentary  have  belied  every  principle  of  scholarship, 
and  even  of  honor,  in  violation  of  the  very  doctrines  that  one 
of  them  has  accepted  and  striven  to  propagate  throughout  his 
life.  To  all  appearance  they  have  as  little  compunction  about 
deceiving  their  readers  as  a  fraudulent  company  promoter  has 
about  deceiving  the  public  vi^hom  he  hopes  to  despoil.^  I  use 
this  clear  language  purposely,  because  I  feel  that  a  state  of 
affairs  has  arisen  which  must  be  terminated.  We  have  to 
deal  with  a  number  of  professors  who  abuse  their  positions  in 
the  last  way  one  would  expect,  for  it  must  be  remembered 
that  the  public  supposes  them  to  be  men  of  high  standing- 
actuated  by  the  purest  motives,  adopting  and  advocating 
particular  views  because  those  views  .arise  necessarily  from 
the  relevant  evidence.  Now  I  feel  that  the  time  has  come 
when  their  conduct  has  passed  all  reasonable  limits,  and  it  is 
a  public  duty  to  say  so.  If  men  who  should  be,  and  profess 
to  be,  servants  of  truth  undertake  to  abuse  their  positions  by 
deliberately  propagating  falsehood,  a  time  comes  when  it  is 
necessary  to  denounce  them  publicly  as  falsifiers  who  would 
never  dare  to  enter  a  witness-box  to  sustain  their  allegations 
on  oath  and  under  cross-examination.  Dr.  Alexander  R. 
Gordon,  of  the  Presbyterian  College,  Montreal,  affords  an 
excellent  illustration   of  this   in   the  correspondence  that  ap- 

^In  the  case  of  Dr.  Driver  the  best  illustration  of  the  above 
statement  is  the  volume  on  Exodus  in  the  Cambridge  Bible  for 
Schools  and  Colleges.     See  infra,  No.  12. 


138  Pcntateuchal  Studies 

pears  on  pages  114—123  of  this  volume.  In  reply  to  ques- 
tions whether  he  had  believed  Dr.  Skinner's  representa- 
tions when  he  read  them,  he  alleged  that  he  could  no  more 
say  "  yes  "  or  "  no  "  to  such  questions  than  he  could  to  the 
interrogation  "Have  you  left  off  beating  your  mother?"  In 
the  witness-box  he  would  be  on  oath,  and  subject  to  cross- 
examination.  Dr.  Gordon  would  have  either  to  give  straight- 
forward answers  to  straightforward  questions  or  to  take  the 
consequences,  which  would  be  ruinous  to  his  reputation;  and 
it  would  appear  clearly  that  he  had  been  duped  by  Dr.  Skin- 
ner. A  court  of  justice  is  not  to  be  deceived  by  the  methods 
which  are  apparently  thought  good  enough  for  theological 
students. 

Similar  considerations  apply  to  Dr.  Skinner  himself.  I  once 
wrote  to  Dr.  Driver,  in  a  private  letter  for  the  information  of 
the  general  editors  and  Dr.  Skinner,  that,  if  the  latter  brought 
an  action  for  libel  against  me,  it  would  be  the  end  of  the 
school  of  Astruc  in  England,  and  I  now  repeat  this  statement 
for  the  information  of  a  larger  public.  I  propose  to  devote 
some  little  space  to  explaining  exactly  why  this  is  so,  because 
in  some  quarters  there  appears  to  be  misunderstanding  as  to 
precisely  what  Dr.  Skinner  has  done. 

The  controversy  which  has  done  so  much  to  expose  the 
conduct  of  the  higher  critics  began  with  a  very  innocent  ques- 
tion published  in  the  Expository  Times  for  May,  1909,  by  the 
Rev.  A.  P.  Cox,  referring  to  my  article  in  the  Bibliotheca 
Sacra  for  January,  1909.^  Dr.  Skinner  answered  in  the  same 
number,  but  it  was  perfectly  clear  that  he  had  not  read  my 
article.  Thus  he  wrote :  "  in  Genesis  ....  the  LXX  [differs 
from  the  Jewish  -version]   in  49   [cases]  —  about  one-sixth  of 

'  Now  reprinted,  with  slight  modificatious,  in  the  first  chapter 
of  my  Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism. 


Pcntatcuchal  Criticism  139 

the  whole."  "  These  facts  were  not  discovered  by  Mr.  H.  M. 
Wiener  "  —  that,  at  any  rate,  was  a  great  deal  truer  than  he 
suspected.  Had  he  read  my  article  he  would  have  found  that 
"  these  facts  "  were  not  facts.  He  then  proceeded :  "  but  are 
the  common  property  of  scholars,  whether  scholars  have 
always  given  due  weight  to  them  or  not.  It  does  not  on  the 
face  of  it  look  as  if  very  much  capital  could  be  made  out  of 
so  limited  a  divergence."  After  some  further  discussion, 
which  did  not  in  itself  prove  that  he  had  not  read  my  article. 
Dr.  Skinner  proceeded  to  betray  his  ignorance  again  by  claim- 
ing: (1)  that  Greek  copyists  were  likely  to  observe  the  dis- 
tinction between  the  two  words  less  carefully  than  Jewish 
scribes;  and  (2)  that  where  MT  and  LXX  differ  the  cases 
where  God  is  used  for  the  Tetragrammaton  "  show  an  im- 
mense preponderance  over  those  where  '  Lord '  is  used  for 
Elohim,  the  preference  for  the  common  word  being  as  marked 
as  it  is  intelligible."  This  was  a  particularly  unnecessary  be- 
trayal of  ignorance,  because  Mr.  Cox  had  emphasized  the 
fact  that  I  had  adduced  evidence  showing  that  the  versional 
variants  rest  on  divergent  Hebrew  texts,  and  are  not  due  to 
avoidance  of  the  Tetragrammaton  by  translators.  Hence  a 
careful  reading  of  the  question  Dr.  Skinner  was  purporting 
to  answer  would  have  put  him  on  his  guard  in  these  matters. 
After  some  further  discussion,  in  which  he  compared  the  crit- 
ical achievements  to  the  discovery  of  America,  Dr.  Skinner 
thought  fit  to  lay  down  what  my  arguments  (which  he  ob- 
viously had  not  read)  could  ever  accomplish.  Now  I  do  not 
know  what  standards  of  honor  commend  themselves  to 
higher  critical  minds :  but,  from  the  point  of  view  of  laymen, 
it  is  certain  that  Dr.  Skinner  transgressed  in  two  respects: 
First,  although  he  had  not  troubled  to  read  my  work,  he 
passed  adverse  judgment  on  me.     It  is  not  the  custom  among 


140  Pcntateiichal  Studies 

men  of  honor  to  condemn  what  they  have  not  read.^  For 
them,  "  Thou  shalt  not  bear  false  witness  against  thy  neigh- 
bor "  is  still  binding.  Secondly,  he  was  deceiving  his  public 
by  making  false  representations.  Any  reader  of  his  note  who 
had  not  independent  knowledge  must  have  supposed  that  he 
had  read  my  article,  and  that  he  was  putting  forward  state- 
ments which  he  had  reasonable  ground  to  believe  to  be  true. 
In  these  circumstances  I  did  my  best  to  recall  him  to  a  sense 
of  right  without  exposing  him  too  openly.  My  reply,  which 
was  published  in  the  Expository  Times  for  July,  1909,  was 
designed  to  draw  his  attention  to  the  article  he  had  not  read, 
and  to  the  unsoundness  of  his  statements  of  fact  and  his  ar- 
guments.^ Thus  he  had  twice  had  public  warning  —  once  in 
Mr.  Cox's  note  and  once  in  mine  —  of  the  true  state  of  afifairs, 
and  this  was  reinforced  by  Professor  Schlogl's  correction  of 
him  in  the  September  number  of  the  same  magazine.  It  was 
in  those  circumstances  that  he  took  it  upon  himself  to  repeat 
his  representations  in  his  volume  on  Genesis.  Of  course  he 
could  not  support  his  published  statements  in  the  witness-box 
without  committing  direct  perjury,  and  that  is  why  there  can 
be  no  question  of  his  bringing  proceedings  for  libel.  I  did  all 
I  could  to  keep  him  straight  after  his  first  offense  by  the  note 
in  the  Expository  Times:  but  if  the  principal  of  a  theological 
college,  after  repeated  warnings,  persists  in  giving  currency 
to  statements  which  he  could  not  support  in  the  witness-box 
without  committing  perjury,  a  time  comes  when  the  interests 

^  It  seems,  however,  to  be  the  usual  practice  among  higher  crit- 
ics. I  could  give  instance  after  instance  that  has  come  to  my 
knowledge,  and  may  perhaps  do  so  on  another  occasion  should  ne- 
cessity arise. 

'I  fear  that  Dr.  Gordon  has  not  realized  this.  It  is,  to  say  the 
least,  doubtful  whether  he  has  done  me  the  justice  of  carefully 
reading  and  considering  the  Bibliotheca  Sacra  article  and  compar- 
ing it  with  Dr.  Skinner's  discussion  in  his  Genesis. 


Pentateuchal  Criticism  141 

of  the  public  necessitate  a  full  and  clear  exposure.  There  is 
a  further  reason  why  no  action  can  be  brought.  At  present 
the  critics  are  able  to  use  their  control  of  the  technical  press 
in  the  interests  of  their  theories:  but  an  action  would  give 
wide  publicity  to  inconvenient  facts,  and  would  clearly  expose 
the  tactics  that  they  have  pursued  for  years. 

One  other  point  must  be  made.  Two  friends  of  Dr.  Skin- 
ner's wrote  to  me  independently  to  say  that  they  did  not 
think  that  he  intended  to  deceive.  I  answered  one  by  giving 
him  some  further  facts :  whereupon  he  did  not  pursue  the 
subject.  But  is  the  position  tenable?  No,  it  is  not;  for  every 
man  must  be  supposed  to  intend  the  natural  and  necessary 
consequences  of  his  own  acts.  If  Dr.  Skinner  did  not  intend 
to  deceive,  it  was  open  to  him  (both  before  and  after  I  had 
warned  him)  to  tell  the  truth  about  my  work.  He  did  not 
do  so,  but  went  out  of  his  way  to  put  forward  statements  that 
were  false,  and  that  he  must  have  seen  to  be  false  if  he  ex- 
amined my  work  and  Professor  Schlogl's.  Now  in  the  letter 
of  the  4th  of  January,  1911,  the  general  editors  assert,  no 
doubt  truly,  that  Dr.  Skinner  had  told  them  that  he  had  ex- 
amined this  work.  If  this  statement  of  Dr.  Skinner's  be  true 
—  and  so  far  as  my  work  is  concerned  there  are  expressions 
in  his  "  Genesis  "  which  lend  it  some  confirmation  —  I  do  not 
see  how  anybody  can  suppose  that  Dr.  Skinner  did  not  intend 
to  deceive.  According  to  his  own  account,  he  knew  the  truth 
but  chose  to  make  statements  that  were  untrue.  If  he  did  not 
intend  to  deceive  by  acting  thus,  what  did  he  intend  to  do? 

Unhappily  his  offense  is  a  continuing  offense,  for  every 
fresh  reader  of  his  book  is  likely  to  be  deceived  unless  he 
has  had  warning  aliunde,  and  neither  Dr.  Skinner  nor  his 
general  editors  can  be  ignorant  of  this.  If,  therefore,  there 
were  no  intention  to  deceive,  the  book  would  long  since  have 


142  Pentateuchal  Studies 

been  called  in.  Old  Testament  Studies  have  indeed  come  to 
a  pretty  pass  when  theological  professors  and  principals  can 
behave  as  these  men  have  been  doing;  but  obviously  matters 
cannot  continue  thus.  The  position  is  in  fact  impossible  and 
must  shortly  be  recognized  to  be  so.  If  men  occupying  such 
positions  wilfully  and  persistently  give  currency  to  false  state- 
ments which  they  could  not  support  in  the  witness-box  with- 
out committing  perjury,  they  must  in  the  long  run  prove  the 
most  efficient  means  of  destroying  the  theories  they  support. 


XII 
DR.  DRIVER  ON  EXODUS^ 

[From  the  BiMiotheca  Sacra,  January,   1912.] 

Dr.  Driver's  long-expected  volume  on  Exodus  has  at  last 
appeared.  A  reviewer  cannot  welcome  it  with  satisfaction^  for 
to  treat  the  volume  conscientiously  is  an  exceptionally  odious 
as  well  as  an  exceptionally  difficult  task.  The  present  writer, 
at  any  rate,  in  the  course  of  a  singularly  unfortunate  ex- 
perience, has  never  found  a  reviewer's  labors  so  distasteful 
or  performed  them  with  so  much  reluctance  as  in  the  present 
instance. 

On  Dr.  Driver's  own  showing,  the  book  has  taken  a  long 
time  to  write.  We  are  told  in  the  preface  that  the  greater 
part  of  the  notes  were  in  type  when  the  commentary  of  Mr. 
Mac  Neile  appeared,  i.e.  in  May,  1908 ;  and,  thougii  the  pre- 
face itself  is  dated  5  February  1911,  a  perusal  of  the  volume 
shows  that  the  bulk  of  it  is  old,  and  written  without  any  ref- 
erence to  much  of  the  recent  work  on  the  subject.  For  in- 
stance, there  is  not  a  single  reference  to  the  German  books  of 
Eerdmans.  There  are  occasional  references  to  some  of  his 
English  articles,  and  to  work  of  other  writers  that  has  ap- 
peared more  recently  than  the  first  instalments  of  the  "  Alttes- 
tamentliche  Studien."  Not  that  Dr.  Driver  minds  referring 
to  German  books  —  far  from  it.  That  is  not  the  reason  for 
^The  Book  of  Exodus  in  the  Revised  Version,  with  Introduction 
and  Notes.  By  the  Rev.  S.  R.  Driver,  Regius  Professor  of  Hebrew 
and  Canon  of  Christ  Church,  Oxford;  Hon.  D.Litt.  Cambridge  and 
Dublin,  Hon.  D.D.  Glasgow  and  Aberdeen ;  Fellow  of  the  British 
Academy ;  Corresponding  Member  of  the  Royal  Prussian  Academy 
of  Sciences.  Cambridge:  At  the  University  Press.  1911. 
143 


144  Pentateuchal  Studies 

his  reticence.  And  there  is  no  direct  reference  to  my  work. 
Two  passages  in  the  notes  may  have  been  influenced  by  me 
(thoug-h  I  may  be  wrong  in  this  inference),  and  with  these 
I  will  deal  later  on.  But  there  is  a  sentence  in  the  preface 
which  can  be  interpreted  only  as  a  claim  that  he  was  entirely 
acquainted  with  the  facts  and  arguments  I  had  advanced. 
After  stating  that,  in  his  opinion,  his  "  conclusions  ....  rest 
in  their  broader  outlines  upon  secure  foundations,"  he  con- 
tinues :  "  I  say  this  with  full  knowledge  of  what  has  been  said 
by  various  writers  on  the  other  side.  Assiduous  and  pains- 
taking as  the  labours  of  some  of  these  writers  have  been,  it 
does  not  appear  to  me  that  they  have  been  successful  either 
in  shaking  the  great  cumulative  argument  which  shows  that 
the  traditional  position  is  untenable,  or  in  finding  a  better  ex- 
planation of  the  facts  presented  by  the  Old  Testament  itself 
than,  substantially,  —  I  expressly  do  not  say,  in  every  par- 
ticular,—  that  which  is  commonly  associated  with  the  name 
of  Wellhausen."  Observe  there  is  a  claim  to  "  full  knowledge 
of  what  has  been  said  by  various  writers  on  the  other  side." 
It  is  dated  5  February  1911.  Writing  to  me  exactly  three 
weeks  previously.  Dr.  Driver  had  made  the  very  much  more 
moderate  statement  that  he  was  "  acquainted  with  my  writings 
and  had  read  considerable  parts  of  them."  "  Considerable 
parts  "  is  not  a  synonym  for  full  knowledge  or  even  an  ade- 
quate basis  for  full  knowledge:  yet,  of  course,  it  might  be 
possible  to  argue  that  Dr.  Driver  had  spent  the  whole  or  some 
part  of  the  three  weeks  in  obtaining  the  full  knowledge  he 
here  claims.  Unfortunately  the  contents  of  the  book  show 
that  neither  he  nor  his  general  editor  had  that  full  knowledge 
or  anything  like  it.  I  regret  to  say  that  they  are  of  such  a 
character  as  to  throw  a  most  unfavorable  light  alike  on  this 


Dr.  Driver  on  Exodus  145 

statement,  and  on  his  conduct  as  a  general  editor  of  the  In- 
ternational Critical  Commentary. 

In  writing  on  these  subjects,  I  have  repeatedly  drawn  at- 
tention to  the  fact  that  the  ordinary  statement  of  the  Well- 
hausen  school  that  in  early  times  all  slaughter  was  sacrificial 
cannot  be  sustained.  On  pages  175  ff.  of  "  Essays  in  Penta- 
teuchal  Criticism  "  I  was  careful  to  make  this  point  at  full 
length,  particularly  explaining  that  Dr.  Driver  contradicted 
himself  on  the  subject  in  his  commentary  on  Deuteronomy, 
following  the  ordinary  Wellhausen  allegations  in  one  place 
and  contradicting  them  in  a  note  on  the  same  page.  Now  I 
drew  attention  to  this  point  again  in  the  article  on  Dr.  Skinner 
in  the  Bibliotheca  Sacra  for  October,  1910^  (which  Dr. 
Driver  claims  to  have  read  carefully),  and  again  in  the  Ex- 
positor for  November,  1910,  in  an  article  to  which  I  referred 
in  the  correspondence.  ^  If,  therefore,  Dr.  Driver  really  has 
"  full  knowledge  "  of  any  conservative  point,  this  must  be  it. 
Will  it  be  believed  that  in  this  commentary  on  Exodus  he 
again  stultifies  himself  by  a  similar  self-contradiction  on  this 
very  question?  On  page  223  the  phrase  of  Exodus  xxi.  37 
(E.  V.  xxii.  1),  "  and  kill  it,"  comes  up  for  consideration.  Dr. 
Driver  writes :  "  The  word  is  the  one  regularly  used  of  slaught- 
ering cattle  for  food  (Gen.  xliii.  16;  1  Sam.  xxv.  11  a/.)." 
These  passages  and  others  make  it  quite  clear  that  non-sacri- 
ficial slaughter  for  food  was  common.  Yet,  at  the  top  of  page 
207,  in  commenting  on  another  Hebrew  word,  he  writes, 
without  any  reference  to  the  evidence  of  Exodus  xxi.  S7  flw<i 
the  other  passages,  "  Since  in  early  times  animals  were  sel- 
dom, if  ever,  killed  without  an  accompanying  sacrifice."  Other 
instances  to  which  I  have  drawn  attention  are  not  cited.  Now 
I  have  to  ask.  Is  it  possible  that  a  man  who  has  enough  in- 
^  Supra,  p.  62.  =  Page  94. 


146  Pentateiichal  Studies 

telligence  to  produce  a  commentary  on  Exodus  should  con- 
tinue repeating  the  statement  and  contradicting  himself  on  the 
point  if  he  in  fact  had  the  full  knowledge  he  claims  ?  To  me 
it  appears  that  this  question  can  be  answered  only  in  one  way. 

Another  point  that  is  of  very  great  importance  is  the  mat- 
ter of  altars.  On  page  291,  "  the  horns  of  it "  (Ex.  xxvii.  2) 
suggest  to  Dr.  Driver  such  remarks  as  the  following :  "  these 
were  an  indispensable  part  of  an  altar  (cf.  xxx.  2,  3),  and 
were  regarded  as  its  most  sacred  part  ....  a  criminal  seek- 
ing asylum  seized  hold  of  them  (1  Kings  i.  50;  ii.  28)."  Now 
I  have  explained  {op.  cit.,  p.  181)  that  an  altar  of  earth  or 
unhewn  stones  could  have  no  horns  since  the  nature  of  the 
materials  would  not  allow  them.  A  "  full  knowledge  "  of  my 
writings  would,  therefore,  have  shown  Dr.  Driver  that  his 
statement  that  the  horns  were  an  indispensable  part  of  an  al- 
tar "  was  incapable  of  being  supported. 

A  third  example  may  be  taken  from  his  conduct  in  respect 
of  Dr.  Kent's  book  "  Israel's  Laws  and  Legal  Precedents." 
One  of  the  most  eminent  living  authorities  on  ancient  law 
wrote  to  me  that  Dr.  Kent's  book  was  ''  in  fact  very  disgrace- 
ful." If  Dr.  Driver  likes  to  submit  my  review  of  that  book 
(a  copy  of  which  was  sent  to  him  in  1908)  to  any  Oxford  law 
don  in  whom  he  has  confidence,  he  can  obtain  independent  con- 
firmation of  this  view.  Yet  he  actually  recommends  the 
volume  on  page  2  of  the  eighth  edition  of  his  "  Literature  of 
the  Old  Testament,"  and  follows  up  this  recommendation  by 
referring  his  unfortunate  readers  to  it  in  his  "  Exodus  "  (pp. 
Ixiii.  note,  418  note). 

There  is  no  object  in  multiplying  instances.  Dr.  Driver's 
"  knowledge  "  is  obviously  not  "full."  "  Studies  in  Biblical 
Law,"  "  Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism,"  and  the  article  on 
"  Priests  and  Levitcs  "  in  the  July,  19 lU,  number  of  the  Bib- 


Dr.  Driver  on  Exodus  147 

Hotheca  Sacra/  together  answer  most  of  his  points.  In  some 
cases  it  might  be  open  to  Dr.  Driver  to  reply  that,  to  his  mind, 
the  answers  were  not  convincing;  but  that  cannot  well  be  the 
case  with  the  instances  I  have  considered. 

Nor  again  could  this  be  said  of  the  uncertainty  of  the  Mas- 
soretic  text  as  to  the  Divine  appellations,  a  matter  of  which 
Dr.  Driver  says  no  word  in  spite  of  his  formal  reservation  in 
the  correspondence  with  me  of  the  right  to  treat  the  matter 
in  whatever  manner  he  might  think  proper.  That  question 
has  now  reached  a  stage  in  which  it  can  no  longer  be  pretended 
that  complete  silence  is  compatible  with  honorable  candor 
towards  his  public. 

It  appears  to  me,  therefore,  that  his  conduct  raises  ques- 
tions of  great  and  fundamental  gravity  touching  the  respon- 
sibilities of  a  writer  to  his  readers,  especially  when  those 
readers  may  in  many  cases  be  school-boys  or  other  junior 
students  who  stand  in  peculiar  need  of  protection.  Dr.  Driver 
has  raised  questions  of  conscience  that  are  of  greater  moment 
than  any  questions  of  scholarship.  How  far  is  any  writer 
justified  in  solemnly  holding  himself  out  as  possessing  knowl- 
edge that  he  does  not  in  fact  possess?  How  far  is  he  justified 
in  asking  his  readers  to  believe  him  or  accept  his  conclusions 
on  the  strength  of  this  profession  of  knowledge?  How  far  is 
he  justified  in  recommending  or  referring  his  readers  to  very 
disgraceful  books  without  a  word  of  warning?  How  far  is 
it  right  that  these  things  should  be  done  under  the  shelter  of 
the  name  of  a  great  University?  Are  such  actions  creditable 
or  even  excusable  features  of  a  "  Cambridge  Bible  for  Schools 
and  Colleges,"  or  indeed  of  any  Bible  commentary?  Is  this 
what  the  public  expects  of  professors  and  others  who  under- 
take to  give  instruction  on  the  Bible  to  more  or  less  defense- 
^  See  infra,  No.  20. 


148  Pentatcttchal  Studies 

less  students?  These  are  questions  to  be  answered  not  mere- 
ly by  Dr.  Driver  and  his  general  editor,  but  also  by  those  who 
are  responsible  for  the  reputation  of  the  Cambridge  Univer- 
sity Press,  by  all  who  are  engaged  in  teaching  or  learning  the 
Bible,  and  by  the  general  public. 

It  remains  for  me  to  say  a  few  words  on  the  passages  that 
appear  to  have  been  influenced  by  my  work.  In  Exodus  vi. 
3,  Dr.  Driver  adopts  "Tiynin  for  "Tiyni:,  and  in  xviii.  6  nan 
for  "'JX;  but  in  both  instances  it  seems  probable  that  this 
is  the  result  of  an  independent  yielding  to  the  overwhelm- 
ing evidence,  and  not  to  anything  I  have  written.  There  are, 
however,  two  other  passages  where  I  suspect  something  more. 
The  first  of  these  is  in  the  note  on  Exodus  xxi.  6.  On  the 
words  "  the  door,"  Dr.  Driver  writes :  "  not  as  has  been  sup- 
posed, of  the  sanctuary."  The  "  supposition  "  to  which  he 
alludes  in  these  distant  terms  is  enshrined  in  his  own  commen- 
tary on  Deuteronomy.  Why  does  he  now  contradict  it  with- 
out assigning  any  reason  ?  ^  Has  he  really  discovered  that  a 
mound  or  stone  will  not  develop  a  door  or  doorpost  even  if 
it  be  called  a  sanctuary  ? 

The  other  passage  is  Exodus  xxxiii.  7,  "  the  tent."  On  this 
he  writes  (p.  359):  "the  rendering  'a  tent'  which  Hebrew 
idiom  would  also  permit,  does  not  suit  the  sequel,  which  im- 
plies that  not  a  casual,  but  a  definite  tent,  is  meant."  No  name 
is  mentioned,  but  it  seems  not  unlikely  that  this  note  is  due 
to  my  insistence  on  the  rendering  '  a  tent '  as  being  here  the 
correct  equivalent  of  the  Hebrew.  It  is  therefore  right  that 
I  should  deal  with  the  argument.  It  is  unnecessary  on  the 
'On  his  present  approval  of  the  conjecture  that  elohim  in  this 
passage  should  be  rendered  'gods,'  and  understood  of  the  house- 
hold gods  and  of  Kautzsch's  view  that  the  reference  is  to  an  image 
of  God,  I  need  only  refer  him  to  my  Notes  on  Hebrew  Religion, 
pp.  24  f. 


Dr.  Driver  on  Exodus  149 

point  of  definiteness  to  do  more  than  to  quote  Dr.  Driver's 
note  on  page  160  ("in  a  book,"  Ex.  xvii.  14).  After  citing 
Dillmann's  words,  "  the  Hebrew  always  writes  '  in  the  book,'  " 
Dr.  Driver  continues  in  his  own  language  thus:  "an  object 
being  conceived  as  definite  in  Hebrew  not  only  because  it  is 
already  known  or  has  been  mentioned  before,  but  also  because 
it  is  taken  for  a  particular  purpose,  and  so  made  definite  in  the 
speaker's  or  writer's  mind.  See  numerous  examples  in  Gese- 
nius-Kautzsch,  sect.  126  r.  s. ;  e.  g.  Ex.  xvi.  32  the  omerful,  xxi. 
20  with  the  rod.  Num.  xxi.  9  put  it  on  the  pole,  Jos.  ii.  15  with 
the  cord,  etc. ;  in  all  such  cases  we  naturally  say  a."  Precise- 
ly: a  casual  tent  taken  for  a  particular  purpose  and  so  made 
definite  in  the  writer's  mind  would  be  expressed  by  the  in 
Hebrew,  a  in  English,  and  that  is  exactly  what  the  sequel  re- 
quires, for  Dr.  Driver's  own  next  note  on  the  subject  enforces 
this  truth.  He  writes :  "  pitch  it]  Heb.  pitch  it  for  himself: 
it  was  intended  particularly  for  his  own  use,  in  his  converse 
with  God."  Exactly;  and,  that  being  so,  it  cannot  (as  Dr. 
Driver  believes)  have  been  the  abode  of  the  Ark.  It  is  in- 
credible that  Moses  should  have  been  in  the  habit  of  taking 
the  shelter  of  the  Ark,  and  pitching  it  particularly  for  his  own 
use  while  leaving  the  Ark  in  the  camp  in  a  denuded  and  un- 
protected condition.  For  the  rest,  Dr.  Driver  has  entirely 
failed  to  meet  the  points  which,  as  I  have  shown  elsewhere,  ^ 
make  his  view  impossible. 

There  are  many  other  points  that  are  open  to  criticism ;  and, 
in  ordinary  circumstances,  I  should  have  dealt  with  some  of 
these.  But,  having  regard  to  the  peculiar  nature  of  this  pub- 
lication, I  do  not  think  it  right  to  do  anything  that  might  have 
the  eflfect  of  distracting  attention  from  the  larger  issues  in- 
^  Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism,  pp.  90-102;  cp.  The  Origin 
of  the  Pentateuch,  pp.  53  ff. 


150  Pentateuchal  Studies 

volved.  We  have  to  deal  with  a  course  of  conduct  that  affects 
the  good  name  and  honor  of  two  Universities,  and  the  inter- 
ests of  youthful  students  who  are  not  yet  able  to  protect  them- 
selves. 

from  dr.  driver 

Ch.  Ch.,  Oxford, 

Dec.  7. 
Dear  Sir: — 

I  am  much  obliged  to  you  for  sending  me  a  proof  of  your 
note  on  Exodus.  I  do  not  propose  to  write  any  reply  to  it: 
I  will  merely,  as  I  am  writing  to  you  now,  point  out  an  error  of 
fact,  into  which  I  think  you  have  fallen,  with  regard  to  what 
I  say  respecting  Ex.  21.  6.  In  my  Commentary  on  Dt.,  p.  184, 
I  cannot  see  that  I  explain  the  '  door  '  in  Ex.  as  that  of  the 
sanctuary:  I  say  that  I  think  the  clause  containing  the  word 
is  ambiguous ;  but  I  am  not  aware  that  I  express  any  prefer- 
ence for  the  view  that  the  door  is  that  of  the  sanctuary.  Nor 
can  I  see  that  in  my  note  on  Ex.  21.  6  1"  approve  "  the  opinion 
either  that  elohim  mean  '  gods  ',  or  that  it  denotes  an  image  of 
Yahweh ;  I  wention  these  views,  as  held  by  certain  scholars ; 
but  I  say  nothing  (such  as  '  This  is  better',  or  'more  proba- 
ble') to  suggest  that  I  adopt  either  of  them  myself. 
Believe  me, 

Yours  sincerely, 

S.  R.  Driver. 

TO  dr.  driver 

9  Old  Square, 

Lincoln's  Inn,  W.  C. 
Dear  Sir : — 

Thank  you  for  your  letter.    I  note  what  you  say  with  regard 


Dr.  Driver  on  Exodus  151 

to  the  explanation  of  Ex.  xxi.  6  in  your  Deuteronomy :  but  I 
was  very  careful  in  my  choice  of  language.  The  word  I  se- 
lected —  '  enshrined  '  — was  intended  to  cover,  and  does,  I 
think,  in  fact  cover  exactly  that  interpretation  of  the  Deuteron- 
omy note  which  you  now  tell  me  is  the  right  one.  It  is  the 
case  that  when  you  wrote  your  Deuteronomy  you  regarded 
as  possible  a  view  of  Ex.  xxi.  which  you  now  regard  as  im- 
possible for  some  reason  or  reasons  which  you  do  not  state: 
and  my  expressions  appear  to  me  to  meet  precisely  this  con- 
dition of  affairs. 

As  to  the  other  question  there  is,  I  think,  a  bona  fide  differ- 
ence of  opinion  between  us  as  to  the  effect  of  your  note.  If 
I  am  not  mistaken  this  arises  from  a  difference  of  attitude. 
When  I  read  it  I  reason  thus :  *  What  would  any  junior  stu- 
dent understand  by  this?  One  view  is  mentioned  only  to  be 
rejected :  certain  other  views  are  cited  without  any  suggestion 
that  there  is  any  objection  to  them  or  any  warning  as  to 
adopting  them :  and  other  interpretations  are  not  even  men- 
tioned. A  commentator  who  puts  forward  certain  views  with- 
out objection,  question,  warning,  expression  of  doubt,  or  al- 
ternative, must  be  held  to  recommend  those  views.  Surely  he 
cannot  be  supposed  to  put  them  forward  because  he  does  not 
adopt  them.  Surely,  too,  no  schoolboy  would  suspect  that  the 
commentator  regarded  them  as  incorrect.  If  the  commentator 
does  not  believe  the  interpretations  he  himself  adduces  without 
doubt  or  question,  what  on  earth  does  he  believe  or  mean  his 
readers  to  believe?'  I  cannot  see  that  tliere  is  any  possible 
answer  to  this  from  the  standpoint  of  the  public  for  ivhom  the 

book  zvas  written.  ^^  ,. 

Believe  me. 

Yours  sincerely, 

8  December   1911.  Harold  M.  Wiener. 


XIII 


THE  NEGEB  IN  EXODUS 

[From  the  BiUiotheca  Sacra,  April,  1912.] 

The  use  of  the  word  33J,  Negeb,  for  "  south  "  in  chapters 
xxvi.-xl.  of  Exodus  has  long  been  a  crux,  since  the  word 
properly  means  the  dry  land  in  the  south  of  Judah,  and  this 
was  not  to  the  south  of  the  Israelites  in  the  wilderness.  As 
Robertson  Smith  emphatically  put  it :  "  Moses  could  no  more 
call  the  south  side  the  Negeb  side  of  the  tabernacle  than  a 
Glasgow  man  could  say  that  the  sun  set  over  Edinburgh."  ^ 
J.  Weiss  in  his  recent  edition  of  Exodus  =^  says,  with  reason, 
that  in  xxvi.  18  the  word  is  a  gloss,  but  he  does  not  go  into 
the  evidence  for  the  matter.  I  find  that  the  LXX  presents 
some  striking  phenomena  in  some  of  the  relevant  passages, 
and  it  seems  to  me  desirable  to  draw  attention  to  these.  The 
final  solution  of  the  problem  cannot  be  reached  until  more 
study  has  been  devoted  to  the  textual  history  of  the  conclud- 
ing chapters  of  Exodus,  but  I  think  that  this  is  likely  to  be 
helped  by  calling  notice  to  the  singularities  that  have  special 
reference  to  our  difhculty. 

There  are  five  passages  in  which  the  Massoretic  text  pre- 
sents us  with  the  word ;  viz.  xxvi.  18  with  the  recapitulatory 
passage  xxxvi.  23,  xxvii.  9  with  its  recapitulatory  passage 
xxxviii.  9,  and  finally  xl.  24  (LXX  22).  The  last  of  these 
passages  does  not  caH  for  special  mention,  as  the  LXX  does 
not  differ  from  the  Massoretic  text,  and  attention  will  there- 
fore be  concentrated  on  the  other  four. 

^The  Old  Testament  in  the  Jewish  Church  (2d  ed.),  p.  326.  For 
the  contrary  view,  see  the  Bibliotheca  Sacra,  vol.  Iv.   (1898)  p.  524. 

*Das  Buch  Exodus  iibersetzt  und  erklart.  Graz  und  Wien.  1911. 
152 


The  Negeb  in  Exodus  153 

It  must  first  be  noticed  that  in  all  four  cases  the  Massoretic 
text  presents  us  not  with  one  word  to  denote  direction,  but 
with  two,  "  the  south  side,  southward,"  etc.  In  all  these 
cases  the  first  word  only  is  Negeb,  the  second  being  the  unex- 
ceptionable njDTi-  The  tautology  is,  of  course,  strongly  in 
favor  of  the  gloss  theory.  And  it  is  supported  by  the  fact 
that  in  three  instances  the  LXX  clearly  had  only  one  word, 
while  the  fourth  passage  (xxxvi.  23)  is  missing  altogether 
from  the  pre-Hexaplar  Greek.   But  this  is  not  all. 

In  Exodus  xxvi.  18,  20,  22,  the  Massoretic  text  has  the 
order  south,  north,  west.  Not  so  the  LXX.  It  has  north, 
south,  west  (though  there  is  some  weak  authority  obviously 
influenced  by  the  present  Hebrew  for  the  Massoretic  order). 
Further,  it  uses,  for  "  south,"  to  tt/oo?  votov,  i.e.  its  rendering 
for  njcn  in  verse  35  of  the  same  chapter,  where  even  the  He- 
brew does  not  read  Negeb.  Hence  it  seems  that  the  view  of 
Weiss  is  here  strongly  supported  by  the  Greek  evidence. 

In  the  other  two  passages  the  facts  are  more  complicated. 
While  this  makes  them  harder  to  interpret  it  certainly  adds  to 
the  interest.  In  chapter  xxvii.  a  convenient  conspectus  of  the 
important  facts  may  be  given  as  follows : — 

Reference.  Massoretic  Text.  Septuagint. 

Ex.    xxvii.   9.  On   the   side   of   the     (1)  On     the     south- 

Negeb,  southwards.  ward  side('6  7r/)ds  X^;8a 
being  used),  B  and 
four   cursives. 

(2)  On  the  north- 
ward side,  M  (mar- 
gin) and  about  five 
cursives. 

(3)  On  the  south- 
ward side ('6  irpbsvSrov), 

F,  M(text).  and  the 
great  majority  of 
Septuagintal  author- 
ities. 


154  Pcntateuchal  Studies 

Rkfebence.  Massobetic  Text.  Septuaqint. 

Ex.  xxvli.  11.  On     the     northward     (1)   On      the      east- 

side,  ward    side  {dwT]At.ii)r7ji/ 

being  used),  B,  M 
(margin),  and  three 
cursives. 

(2)  On  the  north- 
ward side,  A,  F,  M 
(text),  and  almost 
all  the  other  author- 
ities. 

Ex.  xivii.   12.  On      the      westward    On      the      westward 

side.  side. 

Ex.  xxvli.   13.  On      the      eastward     (1)  On     the     south- 

side,  orient-wards.  ward  side  [v6tov]  B 
and  a  number  of  cur- 
sives. 

(2)  On  the  east- 
ward side  [di'OTo/dj], 
A,  F,  M(text),  and 
almost  all  authori- 
ties. 

To  appreciate  these  facts  fully  it  will  be  necessary  to  have 
regard  to  the  evidence  in  the  recapitulatory  passage;  but  cer- 
tain phenomena  may  be  noted  at  once.  Only  in  the  case  of 
verse  12  is  there  complete  agreement.  In  the  other  verses  the 
LXX  is  divided  against  itself,  F  and  the  text  of  M,  together 
with  the  grieat  majority  of  the  authorities,  clearly  represent 
a  Hebrew  that  differed  from  the  Massoretic  text  only  in 
having  one  expression,  instead  of  two,  for  south  in  verse  9, 
and  for  east  in  verse  13.  While,  therefore,  they  testify  to  the 
fact  that  the  Massoretic  text  is  glossed,  they  do  not  other- 
wise assist  us  to  recover  the  original  order  of  the  LXX.  If 
we  turn  from  them  to  B,  the  best  MS.,  we  find  that  of  the 
four  quarters,  two  (verses  9  and  13)  are  south,  and  the  north 
is  entirely  missing.  Further,  two  words  are  used  for  south, 
\i^a»  in  verse  9,  and  vorov  in  verse  13.  Obviously  there  must 
originally  have  been  a  "  north,"  and  one  or  other  of  these  two 
words  has  replaced  the  earlier  text.    Which  of  the  two  is  it? 


The  Negcb  in  Exodus  155 

The  answer  is  clear  for  three  reasons:  (1)  in  verse  9,  B's 
"  south  "  may  be  an  accommodation  to  the  later  Hebrew,  but 
it  cannot  be  so  in  verse  13.  Hence  it  is  more  likely  to  be  cor- 
rupt in  the  earlier  verse;  (2)  "  north  "  has  been  preserved  by 
some  good  authorities  as  the  original  residing  in  verse  9 ;  and 
(3)  the  presumption  is  in  favor  of  the  original  translators 
having  used  the  same  word  v6ro<;  as  in  the  other  passages  of 
these  chapters  rather  than  Xti/r.  Hence  we  may  infer  that  the 
original  LXX  had  north,  east,  west,  south.  It  should  further 
be  noticed  that  the  rarer  aTrrjXtoiTT}^  for  "  east "  in  verse  11  is 
far  more  likely  to  be  the  original  text  of  the  LXX  than  the 
common    avaTo\d<;, 

Much  of  this  receives  striking  confirmation  from  the  phe- 
nomena presented  by  xxxviii.  9-13  (in  the  LXX  xxxvii.  7- 
11).  The  material  words  in  the  Massoretic  text  are  the  same 
as  in  the  earlier  passage,  but  the  best  LXX  text  has  five 
quarters.  In  xxxvii.  7  =  M.  T.  xxxviii.  9  it  reads  "  south- 
wards," \i^a  being  used,  but  M(text)  and  many  cursives 
have  voTov.  In  verse  9  it  has  two  clauses  —  the  earlier  "  north- 
wards," the  second  "  southwards,"  votov  being  used.  The 
second  clause  is,  however,  omitted  by  M  and  many  other 
MSS.  In  verse  11  it  has  avaroXd^  with  very  weak  evidence 
for  VOTOV.  It  should  be  added  that  an  old  Latin  copy  reads 
"  north "  in  verse  7,  "  east "  in  verse  10,  and  "  west "  in 
verse  11. 

I  think  that  the  five  quarters  in  this  passage  afford  corrob- 
orative evidence  that  the  original  Septuagintal  text  of  chapter 
xxvii.  knew  nothing  of  the  Ne;geb.  The  order  was  diflFerent, 
and,  alike  for  east  and  south,  it  found  only  one  word  in  its 
Hebrew.  In  the  latter  respect  it  indubitably  had  a  purer  He- 
brew text  than  our  Massoretic  text.  Whether  its  order  of 
the  four  quarters  is  the  more  original  is  a  subject  on  which 


156  Pentateuchal  Studies 

I  am  not  prepared  to  offer  an  opinion.  And  with  respect  to 
its  text  in  xxxvii.  it  seems  to  me  that  judgment  must  be  sus- 
pended until  the  whole  problem  of  the  text  of  the  concluding 
chapters  of  Exodus  has  been  thoroughly  investigated. 


XIV 
THE  "KING"  OF  DEUTERONOMY  XVII.  14-20 

[From  the  Bibliotheca  Sacra,  July,  1911.] 

Happening  to  glance  at  the  Hexapla,  I  was  struck  by  the 
fact  that  in  Deuteronomy  xvii.  14  archon,  "  ruler,"  instead  of 
the  natural  basileus,  "  king,"  corresponded  to  the  Hebrew 
melek,  "king,"  in  the  Septuagintal  text.  Nobody  who  knows 
Greek  could  regard  this  as  a  translation.  Nor  did  the  Old- 
Latin  translators,  for  they  render  by  princeps.  On  following 
up  the  clue,  I  found  reason  to  suppose  that  the  form  of  this 
law  known  to  the  LXX  differed  slightly,  but  very  materially, 
from  that  of  the  Massoretic  text.  Various  considerations 
unite  to  suggest  this  conclusion.  It  is  true  that  there  are 
other  passages  in  which  archon  and  its  cognates  appear  to 
represent  melek  and  its  cognates,  but  in  each  case  the  Septua- 
gintal text  must  have  been  different  from  our  Hebrew.  Then, 
too,  some  of  the  variants  in  the  Pentateuch  are  not  at  all  fa- 
vorable to  the  view  that  this  law  was  originally  a  law  of  the 
kingdom,  but  distinctly  suggest  that  the  text  has  had  a  history. 
Again,  the  other  variants  in  this  passage  itself  show  that 
there  was  once  a  text  relating  perhaps  to  rulers,  not  a  single 
king,  in  which  the  throne  was  unknown  and  no  suggestion  of 
the  hereditary  character  of  the  office  existed. 

As  the  inquiry  is  necessarily  very  technical,  I  propose,  for 

the  sake  of  those  readers  who  may  be  interested  in  the  Pen- 

tateuchal  problem  and  yet  do  not  care  to  grapple  with  the 

minutiae  of  various  Greek  and  Plebrew  readings,  to  set  out  a 

157 


158 


Pentateuchal  Studies 


translation  of  what  I  believe  the  original  Septuagintal  text  to 
have  been,  in  parallel  columns  with  the  ordinary  R.  V.  render- 
ing. For  the  sake  of  convenience  I  italicize  the  differences. 
My  reasons  are  given  in  detail  in  the  following  discussion, 
but  everybody  can  see  for  himself  how  different  the  histori- 
cal setting  of  the  two  versions  would  be. 


R.V. 

14  When  thou  art  come  unto 
the  land  which  the  Lord  thy  God 
giveth  thee  and  shalt  possess  it, 
and  Shalt  dwell  therein;  and 
Shalt  say,  I  will  set  a  king  over 
me,  like  as  all  the  nations  that 
are  round  about  me; 

15  thou  Shalt  in  any  wise  set 
Mm  king  over  thee,  whom  the 
Lord  thy  God  shall  choose:  otve 
from  among  thy  brethren  shalt 
thou  set  king  over  thee:  thou 
mayest  not  put  a  foreigner  over 
thee,  which  is  not  thy  brother. 

16  Only  he  shall  not  multi- 
ply horses  to  himself,  nor  cause 
the  people  to  return  to  Egypt, 
to  the  end  that  he  should  multi- 
ply horses:  forasmuch  as  the 
Lord  hath  said  unto  you,  Ye 
shall  henceforth  return  no  more 
that  way. 

17  Neither  shall  he  multiply 
wives  to  himself,  that  his  heart 
turn  not  away:  neither  shall  lie 
greatly  multiply  to  himself  sil- 
ver and  gold: 

18  And  it  shall  be,  when  he 
sitteth  upon  the  throne  of  his 
kingdom,  that  he  shall  write 
him  a  copy  of  this  law  in  a 
book,  out  of  that  which  is  before 
the  priests  the  Levites : 


PEOBABLE   TEXT   OF   THE   LXX. 

14  When  thou  art  come  un- 
to the  land  which  the  Lord  thy 
God  giveth  thee  and  shalt  pos- 
sess it,  and  shalt  dwell  therein; 
and  Shalt  say,  I  will  set  a  ruler 
[variant  rulers]  over  me,  like 
as  all  the  nations  that  are 
round  about  me, 

15  thou  Shalt  in  any  wise  set 
over  thee  a  ruler  whom  the 
Lord  thy  God  shall  choose  from 
among  thy  brethren;  thou  may- 
est not  put  a  foreigner  over 
thee  which  is  not  thy  brother. 

16  Only  he  shall  not  multi- 
ply horses  to  himself,  nor  cause 
the  people  to  return  to  Egypt: 
forasmuch  as  the  Lord  hath 
said,  Ye  shall  henceforth  return 
no  more  that  way. 


17    [Identical     with     the 
brew.] 


He- 


18  And  when  he  sitteth  upon 
his  rule  [?],  that  he  shall  write 
him  a  copy  of  this  law  in  a 
book  out  of  that  which  is  be- 
fore the  priests  the  Levites : 


The  "King"  of  Deuteronomy  xvii.  14-20  159 

19  And  it  shall  be  witli  him,  19  And  it  shall  be  with  him 
and  he  shall  read  therein  all  the  days  of  tiis  life:  that  he 
the  days  of  his  life:  that  he  may  learn  to  fear  the  Lord  thy 
may  learn  to  fear  the  Lord  his  God,  to  keep  all  these  commands 
God,    to   keep   all    the  words   of  and  these  statutes  to  do, 

this   law   and  these   statutes,  to 
do  them, 

20  that  his  heart  be  not  lifted  20  that  his  heart  be  not  lift- 
up  above  his  brethren,  and  that  ed  up  above  his  brethren,  and 
he  turn  not  aside  from  the  com-  that  he  turn  not  aside  from  th« 
mandment,  to  the  right  hand,  or  commandments  to  the  right 
to  the  left:  to  the  end  that  he  hand,  or  to  the  left:  to  the  end 
may  prolong  his  days  in  his  that  he  may  prolong  his  days 
kingdom,  he  and  his  children  in  on  his  land,  he  and  the  children 
the  midst  of  Israel.  of  Israel. 

Before  plunging  into  the  technical  details,  certain  general 
observations  fall  to  be  made.  There  are  minor  differences  in 
verses  15  and  16  where  the  Septuagintal  text  is  obviously 
superior  to  the  Massoretic,  giving  the  meaning  in  clearer 
phraseology.  There  are  also  some  insignificant  divergences 
in  verse  19  which  do  not  change  the  meaning.  But  the  out- 
standing difference  between  the  two  texts  is  a  difference  of 
institutions  contemplated.  The  identity  in  all  other  matters 
shows  that  we  are  not  dealing  with  mere  scribal  errors.  (In 
verse  18  it  is  possible  that  in  the  LXX  the  word  "  rule  "  has 
replaced  an  original  "  land,"  for  such  a  change  is  attested  in 
verse  20  by  all  the  Septuagintal  MSS.,  with  two  exceptions, 
which  enable  us  to  get  back  to  the  earlier  text.)  On  the 
whole  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  we  have  to  consider  diver- 
gences in  the  MS.  tradition  as  distinguished  from  mere 
chance  errors  of  Greek  scribes.  The  latter  would  not  lead  to 
the  numerous  differences  now  in  one  touch  and  now  in  an- 
other, making  jointly  an  entirely  different  institution  from 
that  known  to  the  Massoretic  text.  The  fact  that  all  these 
little  pieces  dove-tail  into  a  single  pattern  proves  that  that 
pattern  was  original  and  not  due  to  chance. 


160  Pcntateiichal  Studies 

I  turn  to  the  details. 

In  treating  of  archon  and  its  cognates  as  renderings  for  melek 
and  its  cognates  we  may  begin  with  the  extra-Pentateuchal 
cases.  The  first  of  these  is  Isaiah  viii.  21.  The  Massoretic 
text  has  rightly  vni)N3i  13^03  ^^pl.  This  was  rendered  by 
Aquila  and  Theodotion  /cal  Karapa  earat,  iv  ra  ^acnXei  avrov 
KoX  iv  Tot?  6€oi<;  avrov}  The  LXX,  however,  has  KaKa)<i 
epelre  rov  dpxovra  koI  ra  Trdrpia.  The  reason  is  not  far  to 
seek.  Either  the  translators  or  their  Hebrew  original  deemed 
the  true  text  too  improper  for  reproduction  and  paraphrased 
it,  just  as  in  the  present  text  of  1  Kings  xxi.  10,  13,  Naboth 
is  accused  of  blessing  God  and  the  king,  and  in  1  Samuel 
iii.  13  the  scribes  made  Eli's  sons  curse  themselves  instead 
of  God.^ 

The  next  instance  is  Isaiah  x.  8.  For  the  Massoretic  ION''  "'D 
D'D^D  nn^  nB^  ithr^,  "  For  he  saith,  are  not  my  princes  all  of 
them  kings,"  the  LXX  presents  us  with  the  wholly  different 
Kal  idv  etiruicnv  avrw  Su  fi6vo<;  el  dp')(Qiv^  "  And  if  they  say 
to  him,  Thou  alone  art  rulej."  Whatever  may  be  thought  of 
this,  it  is  quite  clear  that  archon,  "  ruler,"  does  not  stand  for 
"  kingj." 

In  verse  10  of  the  same  chapter  we  have  na^DO^  ^n^  hn^^jd  ne*X3 
^"^NH,  "As  my  hand  hath  found  the  kingdoms  of  the  idols," 
exactly  rendered  by  Theodotion,  Kaddwep  evpev  rj  x^^P  ^^°^  "^ 
ySacrtXeta?  rov  elBcoXov.  There  are  here  two  readings  —  ov 
rpoTTOv  TavTa<;  eXa^ov  Kal  irdaa'i  Tct.<:  apx^f  [so  B.  x^P'^^y 
N,  A,  and  the  original  text  of  Q :  and  this  is  recognized  as  the 
reading  of  alia  exemplaria  in  Field]  Xijfi-yJrofMai.,  "As  I  took 

*  SymmachuS    renders  Kal  KaTapia-erai  ^acikia  iavToC  Kal  Trdrpapx*  elSu\a. 

'  Some  suppose  that  the  LXX  originally  read  naraxRv  or  Taraxpa, 
which  is  thought  to  be  a  transliteration  of  a  Syriac  word  meaning 
"  idols."  This  may  be  so,  but  does  not  affect  the  question  of  the 
king. 


The  "  King  "  of  Deuteronomy  xvii.  14-20  161 

these,  I  will  take  also  all  the  dominions  [variant,  "  coun- 
tries "]."  Here  again  it  is  clear  that  the  LXX  had  a  reading 
which,  even  if  archas  is  correct,  deviated  widely  from  our 
present  Hebrew ;  and  it  cannot  fairly  be  claimed  that  it  read 

The  last  passage  in  Isaiah  is  x.  12.  The  Hebrew  has 
"i1t^J<  -[h^  22h  f'lJ  nD  hv  IpQX,  "  I  will  punish  the  fruit  of  the 
greatness  of  the  heart  of  the  king  of  Assyria."  On  this,  Duhm 
ad  loc.  writes  the  following:  "Das  Ungethiim :  die  Frucht 
der  Grosse  des  Herzens  des  Konigs  Assyriens,  passt  trefflich 
in  die  Grammatiken  als  Beispiel  davon  was  alles  moglich  ist, 
aber  nicht  in  eine  beschwingte  Prophetenrede." 

This  is  as  unanswerable  as  it  is  vigorous.  Such  a  collection 
of  genitives  is  impossible  for  the  prophet,  and  is  indeed  a  mon- 
strosity. But  B  reads,  iird^ei  eirl  tov  vovv  tov  /xeyav  eVt 
(this  is  omitted  by  i^,  A,  Q,^)tov  dpxovra  TMv'Acravpicov, 
"  He  will  visit  the  greatness  of  heart,  the  ruler  of  the  x\ssyr- 
ians." 

It  will  be  noticed  that  'IS'  "  fruit,"  is  missing  here,  while 
ton  archonta  occupies  the  place  of  the  Hebrew  melek.  It  is  sub- 
mitted that  the  LXX  is  here  translating  "iltJ'N  yns  ^l?  (compare 
its  rendering  of  Deut.  xxxii.  42).  yi2,  a  rare  poetical  word 
of  uncertain  meaning,  was  glossed,  and  ultimately  relegated 
to  the  margin  by  1^0,  and  then  taken  into  the  text  in  the  cor- 
rupt form  '13-  The  existence  of  this  word  ytSi  meaning 
"  ruler "  or  "  noble,"  is  guaranteed  by  the  identical  Arabic 
root  as  well  as  by  the  Septuagintal  rendering  of  Deuteronomy 
xxxii.  .42  and  one  of  the  Septuagintal  renderings  of  Judges 
V.  2. 

There  remain  only  some  passages  in  Ezekiel.  In  xxviii.  12, 
the  Massoretic  11^  1-'Q>  "  king  of  Tyre,"  has  rov  ap^ovra  Tvpov 
as  its  equivalent.    In  view  of  verse  2,  where  ^V  Ti:b  is  rendered 


162  Pcntateuchal  Studies 

by  rep  dpxovTi  T.,  it  seems  probable  that  the  LXX  found  "I'^J 
in  this  passage  also.  It  is  interesting  to  note  that  Field  has 
the  entry  ol  T.  eirl  rov  ^aa-Ckea  ("The  three  [i.e.  Aquila. 
Symmachus,  Theodotion]  the  king").  They,  at  any  rate, 
did  not  regard  archon  as  a  possible  rendering  of  melek. 

In  xxxvii.  22,  M.  T.  read  1^»^  D^3^  ~'n>  ir\if.  lijoi,  "And  one 
king  shall  be  to  them  all  for  a  king."  The  LXX  has  icaX 
ap')((i>v  eh  ecrrai  avTwv  [alia  exempl.  add  Trdvrcov  Field]  — et? 
^aaiXea,  "  for  a  king,"  being  added  under  an  asterisk  — 
"  and  there  shall  be  one  ruler  of  them." 

In  verse  24,  M.  T.,  r^r^hv  1^0  in  nnyi,  "  and  my  servant  Da- 
vid shall  be  king  over  them,"  is  represented  by  koI  6  hov\6<i 
fiov  AauetS  apx^ov  iv  fiiaw  avrSiv^  i.e.  "  ruler  in  their  midst." 
On  the  former  verse,  Kraetzschmar  notes  that  only  in  these 
passages  is  the  future  ruler  designated  "  king "  by  Ezekiel. 
It  will  be  remarked  that,  apart  from  the  rendering  of  the 
word  melek,  and  the  exception  to  Ezekiel's  invariable  usage 
furnished  by  the  Massoretic  text,  there  are  other  indicia  of 
corruption.  In  verse  24,  iv  fieaw  avrSiv  must  represent  not 
D'T^y,  "  over  them,"  but  ddidd,  "  in  their  midst,"  and  the 
phrase  is  obviously  D3iri3  x^b»J,  as  in  xii.  12.  Then  too  the 
addition  "|?0?  in  the  earlier  verse  is  clearly  a  gloss  on  a  text 
which  had  some  other  expression  for  l?^"i  in  the  earlier 
phrase.  For  these  reasons  it  is  submitted  that  the  LXX 
found  N'^'J'J,  "prince"  (frequently  rendered  by  archon),  and 
not  melek  in  these  passages. 

It  remains  only  to  consider  Ezekiel  xxix.  14  f.,  Q^  vm  14 
niD^ODn  p  rh^t>  is  ns^roo,  "  and  they  shall  be  there  a  king- 
dom base  beyond  the  kingdoms."  The  LXX  has  14  koL  earai 
ctpxv  15  raveLvr)  irapa  Trdaa^  Td<;  dpxd<i^  "  and  it  shall  be  a 
dominion  base  beyond   all   dominions." 

Field's  Hexapla  notes  on  verse  14  that  the  LXX  had   kuI 


The  "  King  "  of  Deuteronomy  xvii.  14-20  163 

ea-TUL  eicel  apxHi  of  which  e/cet  had  been  added  by  Orig-en 
under  an  asterisk,  while  the  three  other  Greek  translators 
had  {ical  earai)  iuel  fiaa-iXela  again  with  e/cet  under  an  asterisk. 
On  verse  15  he  has  UKX-irapairdaa';  ra^  ap')(^d<;  Theodotion 
irapa  ra^  ^aaiKeia^.  Here  again  it  would  seem  that  Ezekiel 
had  a  text  giving  Egypt  a  lower  rank  than  that  of  kingdom, 
and  that  a  gloss  made  in  the  interests  of  historical  explana- 
tion has  supplanted  the  original. 

These  are  all  the  extra-Pentateuchal  passages  that  can  be 
adduced  to  prove  that  "^^  and  its  cognates  could  ever  have 
been  rendered  by  archoti  and  its  cognates.  It  is  submitted 
that  in  every  ease  the  LXX  had  a  different  text, —  generally 
better,  but  sometimes  worse, —  and  that  many  of  the  changes 
in  the  text  have  brought  prophetic  utterances  into  more  prosa- 
ically phrased  accord  with  the  actual  course  of  history.  • 

Turning  to  the  Pentateuch  we  find  that  in  four  passages 
outside  the  law  under  consideration  the  equivalent  of  't>'^  in 
the  Greek  text  is  archon,  but  in  three  of  these  the  plural  is 
used,  while  in  the  fourth  A,  supported  by  as  many  as  four 
cursives,  omits  the  word  altogether.  The  passages  are  Gen- 
esis xlix.  20 ;  Numbers  xxiii.  21 ;  Deuteronomy  xxviii.  36 ; 
xxxiii.  5.  In  Genesis  xlix.  20,  1?^  "'Jiyo,  "  luxuries  of  a  king," 
is  represented  by  rpvj>r]v  dp^ovaiv,  "  luxury  for  rulers." 
Clearly  the  Septuagintal  text  was  different  and  knew  nothing 
of  melek.  Owing  to  the  number  of  different  words  that  can  be 
rendered  by  archon,  no  certain  inference  is  possible  as  to  its 
original.  In  Numbers  xxiii.  21  we  find  ra  evho^a  dpxovTwv 
iv  avT(p.  Again  the  underlying  text  is  difficult  to  divine,  but 
again  it  is  obvious  that  we  have  something  quite  different 
from  the  Massoretic  1^  1^^  nynni.  Field  records  the  fact 
that  Aquila,  Symmachus,  and  Theodotion  all  had  other  ren- 
derings which  corresponded  to  our  present  Hebrew.    In  Deu- 


164  Pcntatcuchal  Studies 

teronomy  xxviii.  36,  the  LXX  has  Kal  tov<;  dpxovrd^   aov  cv7 
eav(so  B  and  other  authorities,  ai^  A,  F,  and  other  authorities) 
KaraaTrjO-ri^,     "  and  thy  rulers  whom  thou   shalt  set,"  which 
certainly    cannot   be   the    equivalent    of  ^i:ii  "iti'N  l^^?:)  nx",  "  thy 
king   whom,"   etc.      Once   more,    the    other    three   translators 
render   Kal  rov  /SaaiXea  crov,    "  and   thy  king"."     The   sugges- 
tion lies  near  at  hand  that  some  plural  word  has  undergone 
corruption   (as    in    some    of    the    other    cases    we    have    no- 
ticed) in  the  interests  of  historical  accuracy.     It  is  not  cred- 
ible that  any  Jewish  scribe  finding  I^^D    should  have  glossed 
it  by  the   Septuagintal  text:   but   the   converse  hypothesis   is 
intrinsically  probable,  and  is  supported  by  what  we  have  seen 
in  other  cases.     It  is  important  to  note  that  in  all  the  Penta- 
teuchal  instances  we  have  examined,  the  "  king  "  of  the  He- 
brew text  appears  to  have  been  an  alternative  to  plural  words. 
The  remaining  case  need  not  keep  us  long,  for  it  is  full  of 
difficulty.     In  xxxiii.  5,  for    1^0    pK«3   \T1,    "  and  he  was  in 
Jeshurun  king,"  the  ordinary  Septuagintal  text  is  ical    earai 
(which  does  not  render  "'iT'l)    eV    tm   rjyaTrrjfMevQ)  ap^ov,   "  and 
he  shall  be  ruler  in  the  loved."     This  is  supported  by  the 
entry  in   Field,  but  A,  k,  o,  r,  and  y  omit  archon,  "  ruler." 
Another    MS.    (b)    has    in   the   margin  ev  tw  evdel  ^aa-L\€v<i, 
supplying  the  usual  protest  against  the  possibility  of  treating 
archon  as  a  rendering  of  mclck.     What  may  be  at  the  bottom 
of   A's    divergence    is    not    clear.     There    are    other    variants 
recorded  in  Flolmes,  but  unfortunately  the  larger  Cambridge 
Septuagint   has  been   unable  to  throw   light  on  the   passage. 
In  any  case  it  is  submitted  that  as  'K'Ni,   two  words  later,  is 
rendered  by  archonton,  it  is  inconceivable  that  archon  (if  it  be 
really   the   original  text  of  the  LXX)    can   here   represent   a 
Hebrew  mchck. 


The  "  King  "  of  Deuteronomy  xvii.  14-20  165 

That  exhausts  the  passages  outside  our  own  where  a  Mas- 
soretic  melek  is  represented  by  a  Septuagintal  archon.  It  is 
submitted  that  in  no  single  instance  did  the  LXX  have  the 
same  reading,  and  that  the  Hexaplar  variants  all  tend  to 
prove  that  nobody  ever  believed  that  melek  could  be  translated 
by  archon. 

It  should,  however,  be  mentioned  that  there  is  one  argument 
which  could  possibly  be  pressed  into  service  in  support  of  the 
theory  that  archdn="  king."  It  is  used  for  the  Hebrew 
Moloch  in  Leviticus  xviii.  21  —  where  the  three  other 
translators  substitute  Moloch  —  and  xx.  1-5.  Yet  here  again 
the  LXX  uses  the  plural  in  the  last-mentioned  verse,  which 
makes  the  rendering  very  doubtful ;  and,  moreover,  the  Greek 
representation  of  the  name  of  a  heathen  god  would  be  influ- 
enced by  theological  considerations,  as  indeed  is  the  pointing 
of  the  Hebrew  text  (giving  Moloch  for  Melech).  Just  as  we 
saw  reason  to  suppose  that  in  Isaiah  the  translators  shirked 
speaking  of  cursing  in  connection  with  the  words  "  god 
and  the  king,"  so  they  may  probably  have  avoided  calling  a 
heathen  deity  by  a  Divine  title  —  if  indeed  the  use  of  the 
plural  does  not  point  to  a  different  Hebrew  word  altogether. 
For  this  reason  it  does  not  appear  to  me  that  the  fact  should 
affect  our  view  of  the  Deuteronomic  text.  That  cannot  have 
been  influenced  by  such  a  notion,  and  moreover  the  other  vari- 
ants in  the  passage  point  in  the  same  direction.  That  ex- 
hausts the  other  passages  we  have  to  consider.  Elsewhere 
"  king,"  alike  in  the  Pentateuch  and  the  other  parts  of  the 
Bible,  is  rendered  by  the  natural  basileus. 

The  details  as  to  Deuteronomy  xvii.  itself  are  as  follows : — 

Ver.  14:  "I  will  stt  over  me  a  ruler  [A,  N,  and  y, 
"  rulers  "1   for  "  I  will  set  over  me  a  king." 


/- 


166  Pentateiichal  Studies 

Ver.  15 :  1^»  yhv  n"'L*'n,  "  thou  shalt  set  over  thee  a  king," 
in  its  second  occurrence  is  omitted  by  d,  m,  the  Ethiopic,  and 
the  Old  Latin.  Examination  of  the  text  shows  that  it  is  due 
to  dittography,  and  is  not  original. 

Ver.  Ifi:  b,  d,  m,  n,  and  w,  the  Armenian,  and  the  Ethiopic 
rightly  omit  DID  nmn  |yo^,  "  to  the  end  that  he  should  multi- 
ply horses." 

Ver.  18 :  "  The  throne  "  is  not  an  original  part  of  the  Sep- 
tuagintal   text.^ 

Ver.  19  :  e  and  j  omit  "  and  read  in  it  all."  These  words 
merely  explain  the  context,  and  it  is  therefore  '  immaterial 
whether  they  are  retained  or  not.  They  are  probably  n©t  or- 
iginal. 

Ver.  20 :  For  "  on  his  kingdom  "  there  are  three  variants. 
The  ordinary  reading  is,  eVt  t^?  «P%^'?,  "  on  his  rule."  Aquila 
is  recorded  to  have  read  "  kingdom  "  with  our  present  He- 
brew. But  q  reads  cttI  t?)?  77}?, "  on  the  [his]  land,"  and 
18  of  Holmes  has  the  obviously  conflate  eVt  apxrj'i  Trj<i  77)9, 
"  on  the  rule  of  the  land." 

For  "  his  children  in  the  midst  of  Israel  "  one  Septuagintal 
MS.  (16)  reads  "the  children  of  Israel."  This  is  supported 
by  other  variants,  the  ordinary  reading  being  "  he  and  his 
children  in  the  midst  of  the  children  of  Israel."  That  is  ob- 
viously conflate,  resulting  from  the  combination  of  the  pres- 
ent Hebrew  with  the  text  of  16.  There  is,  however,  another 
reading.  Some  MSS.  have  "  he  and  his  children  the  children 
of  Israel."  This  is  clearly  an  intermediate  text,  pointing  back 
to  the  reading  of  16  as  the  original. 

The  resulting  text  has  already  been  given  above.  It  re- 
mains to  review  the  historical  considerations. 

^  It  is  interesting  to  note  that  in  verse  20  the  Samaritan  inserts 
"  throne  of "  before  "  kingdom,"  showing  how  easily  such  a  gloss 
could  creep  in. 


The  "  King  "  of  Deuteronomy  xvii.  14-20  167 

Speaking  of  the  narrative  of  1  Samuel  vii.  2-17 ;  viii. ;  x. 
17-27a ;  xii.,  Dr.  Driver  writes  as  follows  : — 

"  This  narrative,  now,  sliows  no  indications  of  the  law  of  Dt. 
having  been  known  in  fact,  either  to  Samuel,  or  to  the  people  who 
demanded  of  him  a  king:  had  such  been  the  case,  it  is  incredible 
either  that  Samuel  should  have  resisted  the  application  of  the  peo- 
ple as  he  is  represented  as  doing,  or  —  if  per  impossibile  he  did 
this  —  that  the  people  should  not  have  appealed  to  the  law,  as  a 
sufficient   justification   of   their   request."      (Deuteronomy,    p.   213.) 

In  the  hands  of  Dr.  Driver  this  of  course  becomes  an  argu- 
ment for  the  late  dating  of  Deuteronomy ;  yet  if  we  look  at  our 
law  again  we  shall  see  that  it  is  fatal  to  such  a  theory.  Dr. 
Green's  arguments  on  this  point  are  unanswerable : — 

"And  how  can  a  code  belong  to  the  time  of  Josiah,  which,  while 
it  contemplates  the  possible  selection  of  a  king  in  the  future 
(Deut.  xvii  14  ff),  nowhere  implies  an  actual  regal  government 
....  which  lays  special  stress  on  the  requirements  that  the  king 
must  be  a  native  and  not  a  foreigner  (xvii  15),  when  the  undis- 
puted line  of  succession  had  for  ages  been  fixed  in  the  family  of 
David,  and  that  he  must  not  '  cause  the  people  to  return  to  Egypt ' 
(ver.  16),  as  they  seemed  ready  to  do  on  every  grievance  in  the 
days  of  Moses  (Nu.  xiv  4),  but  which  no  one  ever  dreamed  of  do- 
ing after  they  were  fairly  established  in  Canaan?"  (Moses  and 
the  Prophets,  pp.  63-64.) 

These  arguments  are  really  unanswerable. 

It  is  urged  that  the  horses,  the  wives,  the  silver  and  gold, 
are  reminiscences  of  Solomon;  but  in  truth  there  is  nothing 
distinctive  about  such  traits.  They  were  obvious  dangers 
such  as  must  have  been  familiar  to  Moses  from  contemporary 
history.  The  dangers  of  a  foreigner's  rule  can  also  be  ex- 
plained from  Egyptian  history,  which  is  rich  in  such  episodes, 
but  not  from  the  annals  of  the  Hebrew  monarchy.  On  the 
other  hand,  the  Septuagintal  text  enables  us,  while  giving 
due  weight  to  these  considerations,  to  suppose  that  the  law 
of  a  kingdom  was  unknown  to  Samuel,  who  would  only  have 


168  Pentateuchal  Studies 

been  acquainted  with  the  earHer  text  referring  to  a  non- 
hereditary  ruler  such  as  he  himself  was.  It  must  be  remem- 
bered that  (apart  from  the  appointment  of  Joshua  and  this 
law)  the  Pentateuch  makes  no  provision  at  all  for  a  perma- 
nent central  executive.  Nevertheless  the  subject  must  have 
been  present  to  the  lawgiver's  mind,  though  tribal  jealousies 
and  other  reasons  may  have  made  it  impracticable  to  take 
any  definite  step  towards  erecting  such  an  authority.  For 
the  conquest  it  was  clearly  necessary  to  vest  supreme  exec- 
utive power  in  the  best  general. 

It  remains  to  notice  that  Ezekiel  in  his  picture  of  the  future 
uniformly  avoids  the  term  "  king."  May  we  not  suppose  the 
reason  to  have  been  that  he,  too,  knew  a  text  of  Deuteronomy 
in  which,  as  in  the  LXX,  the  law  did  not  employ  this  term? 


XV 


DEUTERONOMY  XXXIII .  4-"  MOSES  COMMANDED 
US  A  LAW" 

[From  the  Bibllothcca  Sacra,  April,  1910.] 

This  passage  has  been  used  as  an  argument  against  the 
Mosaic  authorship  of  Deuteronomy.  How  could  Moses  have 
spoken  of  "us"  if  he  had  written  it  [see,  for  example,  E. 
Konig,  Einleitung  in  das  Alte  Testament,  p.  172]  ?  The  an- 
swer is,  that  the  Vatican  MS.  (B),  and  also  b,  w,  d,  e,  f,  i,  1,  p, 
q,  the  Sahidic,  and  the  Ethiopic,  read  "  you,"  not  "  us."  The 
corruption  would  be  a  very  easy  one,  and  the  phrase  "  Moses 
commanded  us  a  law  "  would  readily  commend  itself  to  later 
scribes.  It  is  to  be  noticed  that  there  are  innumerable  other 
instances  of  differences  between  the  LXX  and  the  Massoretic 
text  as  to  the  pronominal  terminations,  and  these  seem  likely 
to  wreck  manv  modern  theories. 


XVI 


THE    LAWS    OF  DEUTERONOMY  AND  THE  ARGU- 
MENTS FROM  SILENCE 

[From  the  Princeton  Theological  Remeic,  April,  1907.] 

A  CONSIDERABLE  portion  of  the  case  made  by  the  higher 
critics  ag-ainst  the  authenticity  of  the  laws  of  Deuteronomy 
rests  on  arguments  from  silence.  It  is  the  object  of  the  pres- 
ent article  to  refute  these;  but,  in  order  to  do  so  quite  fairly, 
it  will  be  well  to  state  them  first  in  the  words  of  some  repre- 
sentative critical  writer.  To  this  end,  two  passages  of  Dr. 
Driver's  argument  in  his  edition  of  Deuteronomy  are  sub- 
joined : — 

"  The  '  Tent  of  Meeting,'  with  its  appurtenances,  which 
figures  so  largely  in  P  (Ex.  xxv-xxxi,  xxxv-xl,  —  together 
with  many  allusions  elsewhere)  ;  the  distinction  between  the 
priests,  the  sons  of  Aaron,  and  the  common  '  Levites,'  so 
often  and  emphatically  insisted  on  in  the  same  source ;  the  Le- 
vitical  cities,  and  the  year  of  Jubile ;  the  elaborately  developed 
sacrificial  system  of  P;  the  meal-ofifering  (nnJ^D),  the  guilt- 
offering  (DCi'N),  and  especially  the  sin-offering  (nx^n)  — all 
these  are  never  mentioned  in  Dt. :  the  atoning  efiicacy  of  sac- 
rifice, on  which  such  stress  is  laid  in  the  sacrificial  laws  of  P, 
is  alluded  to  once  in  Dt.  (xxi  8b),  and  that  in  a  law  for  which 
there  is  in  P  no  parallel;  the  great  Day  of  Atonement  (Lev. 
xvi),  in  which  the  Levitical  system  of  sacrifice  and  purifica- 
tion (Lev.  i-xv)  culminates,  is  in  Dt.  passed  by  in  silence."^ 

In  a  footnote  on  the  above  passage,  Dr.  Driver  adds  the 
following  remarks : — 

^  Driver,  Deuteronomy,  p.  xiii. 
170 


Deuteronomy  and  the  Arguments  from  Silence       171 

"  The  Tent  of  Meeting  is  mentioned  in  Dt.  xxxi  14  f.,  but 
in  a  passage  belonging  not  to  D,  but  to  JE.  Nor,  even  there, 
does  it  appear  as  the  centre  of  a  great  sacrificial  organization. 
The  non-mention  of  the  sin-offering  beside  the  burnt-  and 
peace-offering  in  xii  G,  11  is  very  remarkable.  ...  It  is  also 
singular  that  korban,  P's  very  common,  and  most  general 
term  for  offering  (including  sacrifices),  never  occurs  in  Dt." 

The  second  passage  runs  as  follows : — 

"  It  is  also  undoubtedly  true  that  the  aim  of  Dt.  is  very 
different  from  that  of  P:  the  one  is  intended  (chiefly)  for  the 
guidance  of  the  priests,  the  other  is  addressed  to  the  people ; 
the  one  represents  the  priestly  point  of  view,  the  other  that 
of  the  prophets ;  the  one  lays  down  a  complete  code  of  ritual 
observances,  which  certainly  does  not  fall  within  the  scope 
of  the  other.  Still,  if  P  were  written  by  Moses, — ^  or  even 
compiled  by  another  hand  under  his  direction,  —  it  is  incon- 
ceivable that  in  recapitulating  at  the  close  of  his  life  the  laws 
which  he  desired  the  Israelites  to  observe,  he  should  have 
thus  held  himself  aloof  from  a  body  of  law,  in  the  compila- 
tion of  which  he  had  {ex  hyp.)  been  so  intimately  concerned, 
ignoring  institutions  which  he  had  represented  as  of  central 
significance  in  his  system,  and  contradicting  regulations 
which  he  had  declared  to  be  invested  with  the  highest  sanc- 
tions. Not  only  does  Dt.  not  contain  (in  any  sense  of  the 
word)  a  resume  or  '  recapitulation  '  of  the  laws  of  P,  but  the 
author  does  not  even  do  what,  supposing  him  to  have  been 
interested  in  a  great  ceremonial  system,  would  have  been 
consonant  with  the  general  plan  of  his  work,  and  at  the  same 
time  of  the  utmost  value  to  future  generations  of  Israelites: 
he  does  not,  even  in  general  terms,  refer  to  the  system  which 
(ex  hyp.)  he  had  prescribed,  for  the  purpose  of  summarizing 
its   leading  principles,  or  of   defining  the  place   which   cere- 


172  Pentateuchal  Studies 

monial  institutions  should  hold  in  a  spiritual  religion.  On 
the  contrary,  his  attitude  towards  it  shows  that  its  most 
characteristic  ideas  are  alien  to  his  mind,  and  have  no  place 
in  his  scheme  of  religion."  ^ 

It  is  only  fair  to  remember  that  these  passages  were  writ- 
ten at  a  time  when  Dr.  Driver  believed  that  contradictions 
could  be  established  between  the  laws  of  Deuteronomy  and 
other  portions  of  the  Pentateuch.^  Not  unnaturally,  there- 
fore, they  are  colored  by  this  belief.  Moreover,  in  estimating 
them,  we  must  also  consider  that  Dr.  Driver's  mind  was  in- 
fluenced by  the  old  (and  in  my  view  quite  untenable)  idea 
that  if  Deuteronomy  be  genuine  it  is  a  recapitulation  of  the 
Law.  But,  even  so,  we  must  say  that,  in  view  of  other  pas- 
sages in  his  book  (pp.  xxvi,  xxvii,  xxx).  Dr.  Driver  is  not 
altogether  self-consistent.  Why  complain,  for  instance,  that 
"  a  manual  addressed  to  the  people  and  intended  for  popular 
use  "  which  "  does  not  embrace  a  complete  corpus  of  either 
the  civil  or  ceremonial  statutes  that  were  in  force  when  it 
was  written  "  (p.  xxvi)  makes  no  mention  of  the  land  laws,^ 
or  of  such  technical  details  as  the  meal-offering,  the  guilt- 
offering,  the  sin-oft'ering,  and  the  theory  of  sacrifice? 

As,  however,  Dr.  Driver's  arguments  rest  on  fundamental 
misconceptions  of  the  character  and  objects  of  the  Mosaic 
legislation,  the  best  answer  is  to  deal  with  the  larger  aspects 
of  the  question,  explaining  incidentally  the  particular  points 
that  give  trouble.  The  issues  between  us  are  far  wider  than 
any  question  of  the  mention  or  non-mention  of  a  particular 

^  Driver,  op.  cit.,  ])\).  xl-xli. 

'  See,  as  to  this,  Studies  in  Biblical  Law,  passim;  Essays  in 
Pentateuchal  Criticism,  passim;  and  the  Churchman  (London), 
July,   1906,  pp.  422-430,   and  September,   190G,   pp.   548-555. 

*  There  must  have  been  some  land  laws  in  existence  when  the 
book  was  written,  on  any  hypothesis  of  its  origin. 


Deuteronomy  and  the  Arguments  from  Silence       173 

law  or  sacrifice.  In  the  view  of  the  whole  critical  school,  the 
Pentateuch  is  at  best  an  ordinary  book,  at  worst  a  field  for 
practising-  their  quaint  arithmetical  exercises.  In  my  view,  it 
is  not  primarily  a  piece  of  literature  at  all ;  it  is  a  piece  of 
statesmanship,  and  must  be  judged  as  such.^  While,  there- 
fore, I  recognize  that  it  is  impossible  for  anybody  now  to 
dive  into  the  mind  of  Moses  so  far  as  to  be  able  to  assign 
precise  reasons  for  the  position  of  each  individual  command 
in  the  whole  complex  body  of  legislation,  I  believe  that  atten- 
tion to  the  considerations  that  must  have  been  present  to  the 
lawgiver's  mind,  aided  by  a  careful  study  of  many  points 
that  have  hitherto  escaped  notice,  will  enable  us  not  merely 
to  answer  Dr.  Driver's  arguments,  but  also  to  throw  new 
light  on  problems  that  have  hitherto  remained  unsolved. 

If  we  would  understand  the  Pentateuch  as  a  piece  of  states- 
manship, we  must  first  consider  what  object  Moses  had  in 
view,  and  what  were  the  circumstances  that  conditioned  his 
work.  About  his  ideal  there  can  be  no  doubt.  It  was  to  make 
the  children  of  Israel  a  nation  holy  to  the  Lord,  their  God. 
This  was  really  a  twofold  task.  He  had  to  make  the  Hebrew 
tribes  a  nation.  He  had  also  to  make  them  a  holy  nation. 
The  first  part  of  that  ideal  and  the  means  he  took  to  accom- 
plish it,  I  do  not  propose  to  develop  here.  It  has  not  sufficient 
bearing  on  the  subject  of  this  paper;  and  its  proper  consid- 
eration would  involve  tracing-  the  forces  that  had  been  at 
work  for  centuries  to  make  the  Israelites  of  the  Mosaic  age. 
But  the  latter  part  —  the  making  of  a  holy  nation  —  is  the 

^It  will  be  understood  that,  in  saying  this,  I  do  not  touch  any 
question  of  inspiration.  The  Pentateuch  being  intended  to  influ- 
ence the  conduct  of  human  beings,  we  are  entitled  to  examine  the 
means  adopted  to  secure  this  end,  and  in  doing  so  we  are  in  no 
wise  encroaching  on  the  domain  of  theology.  Moreover,  when  I 
speak  of  Moses  as  giving  laws,  I  must  not  be  taken  as  intending 
to  express  any  doubt  as  to  the  inspiration  he  enjoyed. 


174  Pentatenchal  Studies 

key  of  all  the  institutions  that  puzzle  the  critics.  It  meant  not 
merely  that  the  Israelites  must  be  taught  to  worship  the  Lord 
as  their  God,  and  the  One  and  Only  God,  but  that  rules  must 
be  laid  down  to  make  them  "  clean  "  and  "  holy  "  in  accord- 
ance with  the  notions  of  that  age.^  Moreover,  it  was  neces- 
sary to  stamp  the  impress  of  the  peculiar  relationship  between 
God  and  Israel  on  every  portion  of  the  legislation. 

Turning  next  to  the  surrounding  circumstances,  various  lim- 
itations at  once  become  noticeable.  Nobody  would  expect  to 
find  in  the  Pentateuch  rules  that  were  utterly  unsuited  to  the 
social  and  economic  state  of  Israel  in  the  days  of  Moses.  That, 
then,  is  one  limitation ;  there  are  others  not  less  important. 
It  is  one  thing  tO'  lay  down  laws,  another  to  procure  obedience 
to  them.  A  lawgiver  who  enacts  rules  that  run  counter  to 
the  thoughts  and  wishes  of  his  subjects  only  makes  it  certain 
that  his  work  will  become  a  dead  letter.  "  John  Marshall  has 
delivered  his  judgment;  let  him  now  enforce  it,  if  he  can." 
vSo  spoke  President  Jackson,  of  the  United  States,  of  a  de- 
cision of  the  Supreme  Court ;  and  less  exalted  individuals  than 
heads  of  states  have  often  reduced  laws  to  impotence.  A  case 
in  point  may  be  quoted  from  the  legislation  of  the  Penta- 
teuch. We  know  from  Jeremiah,  that,  though  the  law  com- 
manding the  manumission  of  Hebrew  slaves  six  years  after 
their  purchase  was  observed  for  a  short  time  after  the  redis- 
covery of  the  book  of  the  Law,  it  was  speedily  broken  again. 
A  third  limitation  is  to  be  found  in  the  habits  and  ideas  of 
the  age.  There  is  progress  in  legal  ideas  and  devices,  as  in 
other  huiuan  thoughts  and  inventions.  Thus  a  system  of 
procedure  that  depends  largely  on  writing  will  be  unknown 

^  It  was,  of  course,  also  necessary  to  provide  a  number  of  rules 
to  deal  with  matters  that  arise  in  every  society,  such  as  theft; 
but,  as  no  question  arises  on  these,  they  may  for  our  present  pur- 
pose be  left  out  of  consideration. 


Deuteronomy  and  the  Arguments  from  Silence       175 

or  impracticable  in  an  age  when  writing  is  not  in  common 
use.'^  In  such  an  age,  too,  there  can  have  been  no  such  thing 
as  a  law  of  forgery.  But  there  are  two  points  to  which  par- 
ticular attention  must  be  drawn,  because  a  grasp  of  them  is 
important  to  the  proper  appreciation  of  the  Mosaic  legislation. 
The  first  is  that  ancient  law  knows  nothing  of  any  remedy 
for  apprehended  wrong.  If  I  have  good  ground  for  believing 
that  my  neighbor  is  about  to  trespass  on  my  land,  a  mature 
system  of  law  may  in  certain  circumstances  allow  me  to  obtain 
—  not  merely  damages  for  the  injury  his  past  trespasses  may 
have  caused,  but  also  —  an  injunction,  i.e.  an  order  to  prevent 
his  doing  so.  If  he  disobeys  that,  he  will  be  sent  to  prison.^ 
The  injunction  is  unknown  to  early  law,  and  is  alien  to  its 
ideas.  The  want  of  such  a  remedy  is  very  obvious  in  the 
Mosaic  legislation.  A  man  ill-treats  his  servant  or  slave.  If 
the  injury  is  very  bad,  a  remedy  is  given.  The  slave  is  to  go 
free.  But  in  other  less  severe  cases  what  is  to  be  done?  For 
lack  of  adequate  machinery,  the  courts  can  do  nothing ;  and  so 
we  find  merely  appeals  to  the  individual's  religion,  or  con- 
science, or  to  public  opinion.    Thus,  in  the  case  of  insolvent 

^  It  is  abundantly  clear  that  writing  was  widely  diffused  in  the 
Mosaic  age,  but  it  is  not  less  clear  that  it  was  not  in  extensive 
use  among  the  Israelites.  In  this  respect  their  position  in  Egypt 
may  not  inappropriately  be  liliened  to  that  of  the  barbarian  in- 
vaders of  the  Roman  Empire  in  the  midst  of  the  Romanized  na- 
tives of  the  various  provinces.  See  Studies  in  Biblical  Law,  pp. 
66-67. 

-  In  criminal  law  there  is  machinery  for  preventing  breaches  of 
the  peace,  but  it  is  sufficient  for  our  present  purpose  merely  to 
notice  the  more  perfect  civil  remedy  of  the  injunction,  which  is 
applicable  in  the  case  of  certain  civil  wrongs.  It  will  be  under- 
stood that  in  my  remarks  the  injunction  must  be  talien  as  simply 
a  type  of  possible  machinery  for  preventing  apprehended  wrong 
irrespectively  of  whether  that  wrong  would  now  be  regarded  as 
civil  or  criminal  or  both  in  any  given  modern  community. 


176  Pentateuchal  Studies 

debtors,  who  were  de  facto  though  not  de  jure  slaves/  we  read : 
"  Thou  shalt  not  rule  over  him  with  rigor,  but  shalt  fear  thy 
God''  (Lev.  XXV.  43).  "He  shall  not  rule  with  rigor  over 
him  in  thy  sight"  (Lev.  xxv.  53).  This  example  also  illus- 
trates my  second  point,  which  is  even  more  important.  It  is 
not  only  impossible  adequately  to  safeguard  for  the  future 
the  slave  who  has  been  somewhat  maltreated  by  his  master ; 
no  satisfactory  punishment  is  provided  for  the  offense  already 
committed.  Why?  Because  there  was  no  strong  central 
government,  no  police,  little  or  nothing  of  what  we  mean  by 
the  "  state."  Before  Moses  there  had  been  no  central  govern- 
ment at  all.  After  him  the  central  government  was  either 
weak  or  in  abeyance  till  the  foundation  of  the  kingdom.  "  In 
those  days  there  was  no  king  in  Israel,  every  man  did  that 
which  was  right  in  his  own  eyes."  Many  consequences  flowed 
from  this.  In  ancient  Israel,  as  in  all  early  societies,  criminal 
law  was  the  business  of  the  private  individual,  not  of  the 
state.  Theft  was  punished  by  such  reparation  in  property 
as  would  overcome  the  feeling  of  vengeance  which  would 
otherwise  have  led  to  bloodshed.  The  punishment  of  a 
murderer  was  primarily  the  business  of  the  avenger  of  blood, 
and  the  most  that  law  could  hope  to  do  was  to  step  in 
and  regulate  the  feud.-  In  other  spheres,  too,  we  see  the  ab- 
sence of  the  central  power.  An  excellent  example  is  afforded 
by  the  sabbath  year.  The  twenty-fifth  chapter  of  Leviticus 
gives  us  the  land  laws  and  also  the  rules  relating  to  the  sab- 
bath year.  A  modern  legislature  would  have  no  difficulty 
about  such  an  enactment.  Punishments  would  be  provided  for 
all  persons  who  should  cultivate  their  land  in  the  seventh  year ; 
an  army  of  officials  would  watch  over  the  execution  of  the  law ; 

^  See   Studies  in  Biblical  Law,  pp.  5-11. 
"  Studies  in  Biblical  Law,  chap.  iv. 


Deuteronomy  and  the  Arguments  from  Silence       177 

and  the  man  who  dared  break  it  would  have  to  reckon  with 
the  courts.  But  in  the  Mosaic  age  the  necessary  machinery 
was  not  merely  non-existent ;  it  was  impossible,  —  though,  for 
people  who  had  seen  the  Egyptian  system  of  administration, 
it  was  perhaps  not  quite  inconceivable.  The  only  substitute 
available  was  an  appeal  to  religion ;  and,  accordingly,  the  dis- 
course in  the  next  chapter  contains  threats  of  exemplary  pun- 
ishment by  God  in  the  event  of  non-observance  of  the  law. 
The  case  is  the  more  interesting  because  the  discourse  is 
silent  about  the  jubilee  laws,  which  are  also  to  be  found  in 
the  preceding  chapter.  They  —  in  contrast  to  the  laws  of  the 
sabbath  year  —  were  jural  laws,  that  is,  laws  which  the  courts 
were  intended  to  enforce:  and  there  would  be  powerful  hu- 
man motives  and  influences  at  work  to  secure  their  observ- 
ance.    Hence  an  appeal  to  religion  was  not  so  necessary. 

A  fourth  limitation  of  a  lawgiver's  power  —  the  last  I 
propose  to  notice  —  is  to  be  found  in  the  nature  of  the  diffi- 
culties which  may  be  experienced  in  procuring  sufficient 
proof  of  an  offense.  Moses  was  desirous  of  preventing 
abuses  of  the  incapacity  of  a  blind  man ;  but,  from  the  na- 
ture of  the  case,  there  would  be  a  difficulty  about  evidence. 
The  blind  man  could  not  identify  the  offender.  Hence  here, 
too,  we  find  appeals  to  religion :  "  Thou  shalt  not  put  a  stum- 
bling-block before  the  blind;  but  thou  shalt  fear  thy  God" 
(Lev.  xix.  14).^  "Cursed  be  he  that  maketh  the  blind  to 
wander  out  of  the  way"  (Deut.  xxvii.  18).- 

^The  first  part  of  this  verse,  "Thou  shalt  not  curse  the  deaf," 
also   illustrates  the  remarks  in  the  text. 

^Perhaps  this  principle  is  seen  even  more  clearly  in  the  first  of 
the  twelve  curses,  "  Cursed  be  the  man  that  maketh  a  graven  or 
molten  image  .  .  .  and  setteth  it  up  in  secret."  It  could  not  be 
contended  that  tTie  lawgiver  limited  the  curse  to  secret  idols,  be- 
cause he  had  no  objection  to  public  images,  but  the  latter  could 
be  dealt   with   under   the   ordinary   law,   while   in   the   former   the 


178  Pentateuchal  Studies 

On  the  other  hand,  while  the  task  of  the  leg^islator  wSs 
rendered  more  difficult  by  all  the  limitations  we  have  just 
considered,  it  was  partly  aided  by  a  method  that,  so  far  as 
I  know,  is  unique.  Many  peoples  have  had  laws  that  they 
have  attributed  to  some  deity,  but  I  am  acquainted  with  no 
other  instance  in  which  laws  are  presented  in  the  form  of  a 
sworn  agreement  of  a  peculiar  type  —  called  by  the  Hebrews 
a  "  covenant  "  —  between  the  nation  and  a  god.  Now  there 
are  obvious  differences  between  sworn  agreements  made  with 
God  and  similar  agreements  made  by  men.  Either  of  two 
men  may  break  his  oath ;  but,  in  the  covenants  with  God, 
only  the  people  could  prove  false  to  their  word.  Again,  if 
two  men  enter  into  an  agreement,  they  may  call  on  One  who 
is  outside  the  agreement  to  enforce  its  observance  by  pun- 
ishing whichever  of  the  two  may  break  his  covenant;  but,  in 
a  covenant  with  God,  the  only  question  of  that  nature  that 
could  arise  would  be.  How  will  He  reward  obedience  or 
punish  its  opposite?  Hence,  in  each  of  the  great  covenants 
with  God,  we  find,  after  the  terms  of  the  agreement,  a  dis- 
course intended  to  procure  obedience  setting  forth  the  results 
of  observance  of  the  covenant  and  of  the  reverse.  As  this 
takes  the  place  of  a  jurat  in  an  ordinary  oath,  I  have  ventured 
to  term  it  a  quasi-jurat.  An  excellent  instance  of  it  may  be 
found  in  the  discourse  of  Leviticus  xxvi.,  to  which  reference 
has  already  been  made.     As  an  aid  to  the  task  of  Moses  to 

question  of  evidence  made  this  difficult  or  impossible.  In  all  the 
twelve  curses  there  is  some  practical  difficulty  in  the  way  of 
action  by  the  courts.  The  difficulty  of  proof  in  the  case  of  some 
of  the  offenses  is  a  commonplace  with  lawyers  even  at  the  present 
day.  The  repeated  commands  not  to  wrong  strangers,  widows, 
and  orphans  are  due  to  a  similar  cause.  It  is  evident  that  all 
three  classes  would  experience  difficulties  in  obtaining  justice. 


Deuteronomy  and  the  Arguments  from  Silence       179 

secure  obedience,  we  may  suppose  its  effect  to  have  been  con- 
siderable.^ 

We  may  now  proceed  to  apply  these  preliminary  observa- 
tions to  the  legislation  of  the  Pentateuch.  It  will  be  easiest 
at  once  to  dismiss  from  consideration  those  decided  cases  in 
which  some  difficulty  arose  and  was  solved ;  as,  for  instance, 
the  question  what  was  to  be  done  where  men  were  disquali- 
fied by  ceremonial  impurity  from  celebrating  the  Passover 
at  the  proper  time.  Such  cases  are  sufficiently  explained  by 
their  historical  setting;  and  Englishmen  and  Americans  are 
too  familiar  with  the  operation  of  a  system  under  which  law 
is  made  by  the  courts  as  cases  arise  for  decision  to  require 
any  lengthy  discussion  of  this  feature.  The  curses,  too,  have 
already  been  noticed.  But  with  regard  to  the  rest  of  the 
rules  the  position  was  more  difficult.  They  were  not  all 
equally  likely  to  find  ready  obedience.  Some  were,  from  this 
point  of  view,  practically  indifferent,  if  I  may  so  express  my- 
self —  that  is,  the  people  would  obey,  and  the  courts  could 
easily  enforce,  any  rule  that  was  reasonably  adapted  to  the 
requirements  of  the  age.-     For  instance,  the   land  laws,  the 

^  See,  as  to  the  covenants.  Studies  in  Biblical  Law,  chap.  ii.  I 
cannot  refrain  from  noticing  one  of  the  other  very  characteristic 
instruments  of  persuasion  employed  by  Moses  —  the  appeal  to  his- 
tory. It  is  used  with  great  oratorical  effect  in  its  subtlest  form 
in  such  a  passage  as  Deut.  xiii.  6:  "And  that  prophet  .  .  .  shall  be 
put  to  death :  because  he  hath  spoken  rebellion  against  the  Lobd 
your  God,  which  brought  you  out  of  the  land  of  Egypt,  and  re- 
deemed thee  out  of  the  house  of  bondage."  Surely  everybody  must 
appreciate  the  appeal  to  the  gratitude  and  the  historic  pride  of 
the  people  —  and  of  every  individual  member  of  that  people  —  in- 
volved in  these  words,  and  their  consequent  power  to  dispose  men 
to  watch  over  the  enforcement  of  the  Law. 

-  Every  law"  is  occasionally  broken ;  but  there  is  a  difference 
easily  apprehended  between  a  law  which  becomes  a  dead  letter, 
and  another  law,  which,  though  habitually  observed,  is  occasionally 


180  Pentateiichal  Studies 

law  of  succession,  and  most  of  the  "  dooms  "  contained  in 
Exodus  xxi.  ff.  would  not  be  likely  to  meet  with  opposition. 
In  many  cases  it  is  important  to  have  some  uniform  rule,  and 
the  exact  nature  of  the  rule  is  less  important.  But  in  other 
instances  Moses  had  to  reckon  with  more  or  less  potent  hu- 
man feeling's  which  would  be  ranged  against  him.  Thus  the 
mitigation  of  the  blood-feud  by  the  institution  of  cities  of 
refuge  would  be  likely  to  run  counter  to  a  strong  desire  either 
for  vengeance  or  for  compensation :  and  the  rule  that  a  He- 
brew slave  was  to  be  manumitted  after  six  years'  service  is 
in  violent  opposition  to  one  of  the  most  abiding  sentiments 
of  human  nature  —  the  desire  for  gain.  These  considerations 
necessarily  dominated  the  form  of  the  legislation,  which  we 
may  (with  the  exceptions  already  noted)  arrange  for  conven- 
ience in  four  groups.     These  four  groups  consist  of: — 

1.  The  terms  of  the  covenant  at  Sinai  contained  in  Exodus 
xix.-xxiii.,  together  with  Exodus  xxxiv.  10-26  (in  which  it 
was  renewed  after  the  episode  of  the  golden  calf),  and  Num- 
bers XXXV.  9-34  (containing  the  law  of  cities  of  refuge  as 
foreshadowed  in  Ex.  xxi.  13). 

2.  Leviticus  xxv.-xxvi.  (containing  what  may  fairly  be 
called  the  land  covenant). 

3.  The  covenant  of  Deuteronomy. 

4.  The  rest  of  the  legislation. 

First,  as  to  the  second  group.  It  would  seem  that,  the 
land  having  been  promised  to  Abraham  in  a  covenant,  the 
laws  specifically  relating  to  the  land  necessarily  became  terms 
of    that    covenant.     Accordingly,    Leviticus    xxv.    and    xxvi. 

broken.  Thus  in  this  country  the  bulk  of  the  inhabitants  observe 
the  law  which  forbids  the  unjustifiable  taking  of  human  life ;  but 
there  are  some  murderers,  and  of  these  only  a  portion  are  suc- 
cessfully brought  to  justice. 


Deuteronomy  and  the  Arguments  from  Silence       181 

contain  agricultural  regulations,  the  law  of  land  tenure 
(including  the  tenure  in  Levitical  and  other  cities),  closely 
related  laws  for  the  relief  of  distressed  peasants,  and  rules 
designed  for  making  the  land  a  fitting  abode  for  God's  Sanc- 
tuary.^ The  arrangement  and  connection  of  thought  are 
here  obvious. 

The  other  two  covenants  are  equally  easy  to  understand. 
The  contents  of  Exodus  xxi.  fif .  appear  to  be  designed  pri- 
marily for  judges  and  heads  of  families  to  commit  to  mem- 
ory. It  is  broadly  true  that  these  chapters  contain  the 
private  law  —  including,  as  above  explained,  the  criminal  law 
— enacted  in  the  Mosaic  age,  and,  in  addition,  certain  brief 
religious  and  other  rules  that  it  behooved  every  head  of  a 
family  to  know  by  heart.  The  style  is  extraordinarily  terse  — 
as  in  other  ancient  codes  that  were  committed  to  memory 
—  and  well  suited  for  the  purpose  suggested.  Deuteronomy, 
on  the  other  hand,  was  intended  for  public  reading  to  the 
people.  It,  too,  was  written  in  a  style  that  was  singularly 
well  adapted  to  its  purpose,  and  therefore  very  different  from 
that  of  Exodus  xxi.  ff.,  since  it  is  one  thing  to  compose  a 
speech  which  shall  impress  men's  minds  and  mold  their  opin- 
ions by  its  argumentative  and  oratorical  power,  and  quite 
another  to  frame  legal  rules  in  a  form  suited  for  memorizing. 

From  this,  the  following  generalization  may  be  made. 
Taking  the  great  body  of  jural  law  —  i.e.  laws  for  the  courts 

^  When  this  is  grasped.  Dr.  Driver's  point  as  to  the  non-mention 
of  the  jubilee  and  Levitical  cities  falls  to  the  ground.  Indeed,  as 
the  sabbath  year  is  not  mentioned  in  Deuteronomy,  while  it  oc- 
curs in  Exodus  and  Leviticus,  we  should  on  critical  principles  be 
justified  in  arguing  that  Deuteronomy  must  be  earlier  than  JE, 
and  that  it  was  not  till  after  Deuteronomy  that  the  sabbath  year 
was  introduced  by  literary  forgers.  A  place  for  everything  and 
everything  in  its  place  is  a  maxim  by  which  no  critic  has  ever 
dreamt  of  testing  the  Mosaic  legislation. 


182  Pentateiichal  Studies 

as  contrasted  with  moral  precepts,  sacrificial  rules,  etc.  — 
and  including-  the  outlying  provinces  of  jurisprudence,  such 
as  constitutional  law,  laws  of  war,  administrative  law  —  we 
find  land  laws  in  the  land  covenant,  private  law  in  Exodus, 
public  law,  and  those  rules  of  private  law  which  depended 
for  their  validity  on  the  force  of  public  opinion  or  were  de- 
signed to  mold  that  opinion  in  Deuteronomy.^  To  this  g-en- 
eraUzation,  there  are  —  subject,  of  course,  to  what  has  been 
said  about  the  decided  cases  —  only  two  classes  of  exceptions. 
The  first  consists  of  repetitions  or  apparent  repetitions ;  the 
second  of  a  very  few  rules  of  jural  law,  which  are  found  in 
Leviticus  and  Numbers.  On  examination,  the  apparent  repe- 
titions turn  out  to  be  due  very  largely  to  the  anticipated  diffi- 
culty of  securing  obedience  to  rules  that  were  opposed  to 
strong  human  feelings.^  The  other  class  of  exceptions  is 
trifling  in  bulk,  and  consists  of  Numbers  xxx.  and  a  few 
verses  in  Leviticus  xviii.-xx.  Without  wishing  to  push  our 
generalization  too  far,  we  may  go  some  way  towards  under- 
standing these  instances,  even  on  the  materials  we  have. 
Numbers  xxx.  lays  down  the  law  relating  to  oaths  and  vows 
—  methods  of  entering  into  business  and  other  engagements 
that  were  more  important  in  early  societies  than  at  the  pres- 
ent day  —  and  is  significantly  addressed  to  the  "  heads  of 
the  tribes  of  the  children  of  Israel."  We  do  not  know  enough 
of  the  constitution  of  the  courts  in  early  Israel  to  be  certain 
what  this  meant.     But  the  rules  laid  down  in  this  chapter  are 

^This  motive  if5  very  strikingly  illustrated  by  such  a  passage 
as  Deut.  xxi.  18-21  (law  of  rebellious  sons),  where  the  thought 
of  the  influence  of  the  proceedings  on  public  opinion  is  actually 
expressed,  "  and  all  Israel  shall  hear,  and  fear " ;  and  also  by 
the  phrase  "thus  shalt  thou  put  the  evil  from  the  midst  of  thee." 
In  the  latter,  moreover,  we  see  the  idea  of  the  unity  of  the  people 
well   brought  out.     See,  further,   Studies  in  Biblical  Law,  chap.  v. 

'Op.  cit.,  pp.   107-109. 


Deuteronomy  and  the  Arguments  from  Silence       183 

far  more  detailed  than  most  of  the  jural  laws,  and  this,  com- 
bined with  the  heading,  suggests  that  the  whole  subject  was 
outside  the  competence  of  the  ordinary  courts ;  or,  at  any 
rate,  that  the  rules  it  contained  were  intended  primarily  for 
a  more  limited  audience  than  that  to  which  Exodus  xxi.  if. 
was  addressed.  The  passages  in  Leviticus  will  be  considered 
later. 

The  remaining  contents  of  Exodus  xxi.  if.  may  be  class- 
iiied  roughly  under  three  heads  —  as  dealing  with  either  sa- 
cred seasons,  or  sacrifice,  or  moral  and  religious  duties.  In 
every  one  of  these  cases  it  is  true  that  we  have  a  sort  of 
precis  (fitted  for  oral  transmission)  of  the  principal  matters 
that  every  head  of  a  household  should  know ;  but  it  is  also 
true  that  every  sort  of  detail  is,  so  far  as  possible,  omitted.^ 
Everything  that  was  too  bulky  —  as,  for  example,  the  list  of 
forbidden  animals  —  was  dealt  with  in  one  or  more  of  three 
ways.  Either  it  was  relegated  to  Deuteronomy,-  or  it  was 
included  in  what  may  fairly  be  called  the  priestly  section  of 
the  Pentateuch,  or  finally  it  was  placed  in  a  chapter  that 
appears  to  have  been  intended  for  public  use  —  Leviticus  xix. 
It  should  be  noticed  that  this  chapter  is  specifically  addressed 
to  "  all  the  congregation  of  the  children  of  Israel "  (cf.  Ex. 

^  It  is  almost  universally  recognized  now  that  Ex.  xx.  24-26  deals 
with  lay  sacrifice,  and  hence  it  appears  most  appropriately  in  its 
present  position.  Deuteronomy  xvi.  21-22  deals  with  the  same 
subject,  and  it  is  impossible  to  say  with  any  certainty  why  It 
should  not  have  been  put  in  Exodus.  It  would  be  easy  to  hazard 
a  conjecture,  but,  as  already  explained,  it  would  not  be  possible 
to  account  exactly  for  the  position  of  every  individual  precept; 
and  unsupported  conjectures  on  small  points  of  detail  would  only 
have  the  effect  of  obscuring  the  broad  outstanding  principles  that 
are  obviously  true. 

^  Here  we  may  conveniently  notice  that  Deuteronomy  contains 
many  commands  concerning  relatively  small  details,  e.g.  xxii.  5-12. 


184  Pentateuchal  Studies 

xii.  3),  and  that  in  form  it  largely  recalls  the  characteristics 
of  poetry. 

We  do  not  know  enough  of  the  customs  and  ways  of  the 
Mosaic  age  to  deal  with  these  divisions  of  the  subject  with 
as  much  certainty  and  detail  as  with  the  jural  laws.  Thus, 
in  Deuteronomy,  we  find  the  rule :  "  Thou  shalt  not  sacrifice 
unto  the  Lord  thy  God  an  ox,  or  a  sheep,  wherein  is  a  blem- 
ish, any  evil-favoredness  "  (xvii.  1).  We  can  see  that  it  is 
thoroughly  in  accordance  with  what  we  know  of  the  nature 
of  Deuteronomy  that  a  broad,  general  principle  should  be 
enunciated  there,  leaving  the  details  for  the  priestly  teaching, 
but  it  would  be  pure  guesswork  to  attempt  to  assign  any  rea- 
son for  its  presence  in  Deuteronomy  rather  than  in  Exodus. 
On  the  other  hand,  it  will  be  easy,  when  we  have  consid- 
ered the  characteristics  of  the  fourth  great  group  of  the 
legislation,  to  see  by  an  example  what  means  were  employed 
by  Moses  to  put  forward  the  rules  relating  to  particular  sub- 
jects in  the  form  best  suited  to  secure  obedience  without  lay- 
ing too  great  a  strain  on  the  memory  or  capacity  of  the 
ordinary  Israelite. 

In  examining  the  fourth  group,  we  see  that  here,  not  less 
than  in  the  other  three  cases,  certain  great  principles  stand  out. 
First,  it  is  here  that  we  must  look  for  what,  in  analytical 
jurisprudence,  would  be  termed  occasional  (as  opposed  to 
general)  commands,  or  commands  which  are  not  laws  at  all. 
All  transitory  precepts  —  commands  to  do  a  thing  once  for 
all  —  are  naturally  omitted  from  the  three  covenants.  Under 
this  head  fall  the  commands  to  consecrate  a  priesthood,  to 
construct  the  dwelling  with  its  appurtenances,  to  divide  the 
land.  It  is  clear  that  nothing  would  be  gained  by  including 
such  matters  in  one  of  the  great  covenants,  while  the  inser- 
tion of  what  was  transitory  could  only  weaken  the  force  and 


Deuteronomy  and  the  Arguments  from  Silence       185 

permanent  value  of  those  remarkable  collections.  But  when 
we  subtract  the  occasional  commands,  we  find  that  we  may 
conveniently  arrange  what  remains  under  three  heads:  (1) 
regulations  internal  to  the  priestly  tribe  and  the  sanctuary; 
(2)  sacrificial  details,  and  particularly  procedure;  (3)  mat- 
ters so  technical  and  complicated  that  they  could  not  be  put 
before  the  people  without  the  teaching  of  some  class  specially 
trained  for  the  purpose.  These  groups  overlap.  The  part  to 
be  played  by  a  priest  in  connection  with  some  sacrifice  might 
be  viewed  as  a  matter  internal  to  the  priestly  tribe,  or  as  a 
sacrificial  detail,  or  as  something  too  technical  to  be  conven- 
iently embodied  in  a  book  that  was  to  be  read  to  all ;  but  that 
does  not  make  it  any  the  less  useful  to  have  some  such  gen- 
eral principles  enunciated. 

The  first  of  our  three  heads  causes  no  difficulty.  Such 
subjects  as  the  internal  organization  of  the  priestly  tribe,  the 
national  sacrifices  commanded  in  Numbers  xxviii.,  xxix.,  the 
details  of  the  ritual  to  be  observed  by  the  priests,  would  not 
naturally  find  a  position  in  any  collection  intended  for  pop- 
ular or  judicial  use.^  But  the  second  head  brings  us  to  a 
distinction  which  is  quite  unknown  to  biblical  criticism  —  the 
distinction  between  substantive  law  and  procedure,  which 
may  best  be  made  clear  by  examples.  I  have  a  right  to  the 
enjoyment  of  my  property  —  that  is  substantive  law;  but  if 
X  interferes  with  that  right,  the  particular  steps  I  may  take 
to  obtain  legal  redress  (as  by  issuing  a  writ  and  going 
through  all  the  necessary  subsequent  stages  of  an  action)  are 
procedure.  So,  too,  with  sacrifice.  The  Israelite  is  to  offer 
the  first  of  the  first-ripe  fruits  of  his  land  at  the  house  of  the 
Lord.     That  is  substantive  law.     But  the  details  of  treatment 

'This  disposes  of  Dr.  Driver's  argument  from  the  silence  of 
Deuteronomy  as  to  the  distinction  between  priests  and  Levites. 
See,   however,   infra,  No.  20. 


186  Pentateuchal  Studies 

of  the  first-ripe  fruits  when  presented  are  mere  procedure 
Two  further  points  should  be  noted  as  being-  germane  to  the 
present  discussion.  There  may  often  be  a  great  difference  be- 
tween substantive  law  and  procedure  from  the  point  of  view 
of  securing  obedience.  Thus,  an  Israelite  might  be  tempted  not 
to  offer  a  particular  offering;  but  if  he  decided  to  make  the 
offering,  he  would  have  no  motive  for  departing  from  the 
prescribed  procedure.^  Secondly,  he  would  have  very  little 
choice  in  the  matter.  The  priest  would  be  there  to  see  that 
he  did  the  right  thing.  It  is  very  striking  that,  in  the  sacri- 
ficial code  contained  in  Leviticus  i.-vii.,  all  the  rules  about 
peace-offerings,  burnt-offerings,  and  meal-offerings  are  con- 
cerned with  procedure.  It  is  assumed  that  the  offerings  will 
be  brought ;  and  we  are  told  what,  pn  this  assumption,  is  to 
be  done  with  them,  —  how  they  are  to  be  sacrificed,  what  dues 
must  be  paid,  and  so  forth.  The  basis  of  all  these  regulations 
is  to  be  found  in  the  words  "  when  any  man  of  you  bringeth 
near  a   corban  -    [offering  regarded   from  the   point  of  view 

^We  may  also  take  a  slightly  more  complicated  example  from 
the  jural  laws,  one  which  has  been  the  cause  of  some  trouble  to 
the  critics.  I  am  to  let  a  purchased  Hebrew  slave  go  after  six 
years  of  service.  That  is  substantive  law,  and,  moreover,  law 
which  I  may  be  strongly  tempted  to  evade  or  resist  if  opportimity 
offers,  for  it  involves  great  loss  for  me.  But  assume  a  different 
state  of  affairs.  Suppose  that  I  am  ready  to  let  my  slave  go,  but 
that  he  elects  to  stay  with  me  forever  under  the  provisions  of 
Ex.  xxi.  5,  6.  The  steps  to  be  taken  under  that  law  are  mere 
procedure.  Not  only  could  there  be  no  strong  motive  for  attempt- 
ing to  evade  its  provisions,  but  there  would  be  a  natural  desire 
on  my  part  to  have  everything  in  order,  so  that  I  could  prove  my 
right  to  the  possession  of  the  slave  if  any  question  should  subse- 
quently be  raised.  Hence  the  observance  of  the  substantive  law 
is  earnestly  enjoined  in  Dent.  xv.  12-18  (especially  ver.  18,  "  It 
shall  not  seem  hard  to  thee,"  etc.),  but  the  details  of  the  pro- 
cedure are  not  repeated. 

°0n  the  meanings  of  corhnii,  which  is  very  inadequately  treated 
in  the  Hebrew  lexicons,  see  more  particularly  Murray's  Illustrated 
Bible  Dictionary,  s.  v. 


Deuteronomy  and  the  Arguments  from  Silence       187 

of  being-  presented  at  the  relig-ious  center]  to  the  Lord  "  (Lev. 
i.  2).  No  information  can  be  gleaned  from  these  chapters 
as  to  when  any  one  of  the  offerings  in  question  was  to  be 
brought.^  In  Numbers  xv.  3  ff.  we  are  given  rules  for  the 
offering  of  meal-offerings  and  drink-offerings  with  certain 
sacrifices.  These  rules  are  from  one  point  of  view  something 
more  than  mere  procedure ;  but  it  is  clear  that  they  have  the 
same  ancillary  and  subordinate  character,  clear,  too,  that  the 
priest  would  explain  to  the  sacrificant  the  necessity  of  ob- 
serving them,  and,  in  the  last  resort,  compel  obedience  by 
refusing  the  sacrifice.-  In  point  of  fact,  the  evidence  of  the 
other  books  would  tend  rather  to  make  us  believe  that  meal- 
offerings  were  offered  long  before  the  date  to  which  the  crit- 
ics assign  D."  But  before  I  pass  from  procedure  and  similar 
ancillary  matters  I  must  make  one  remark.  Lay  sacrifice 
necessarily  involved  rules  for  lay  procedure,  and,  accordingly, 
we  find  in  Exodus  and  Deuteronomy  a  few  very  simple  reg- 
ulations which  w^ere  obviously  intended  to  govern  lay  prac- 

^A  solitary  exception  to  the  generality  of  this  statement  should 
perhaps  be  made  in  view  of  the  calies  and  wafers  of  Lev.  vii. 
12-14;  but  these  may  not  have  been  technically  meal-offerings, 
since  they  do  not  go  wholly  to  the  priest,  like  ordinary  meal- 
offerings   (Lev.  ii.  3). 

=  These  considerations  dispose  of  Dr.  Driver's  points  with  re- 
gard to  the  silence  of  Deuteronomy  as  to  the  sacrificial  system 
and  the  meal-offering;  also  of  the  non-use  of  corban  (a  tech- 
nical word  which  is  applicable  to  what  is  specifically  brought  to 
the  priest,  and  which  would  be  thoroughly  out  of  place  In  a  pop- 
ular collection),  and  of  the  general  silence  as  to  the  theory  of 
atonement  by  sacrifice.  It  should  also  be  noticed  that  Deuter- 
onomy is  silent  as  to  iikkiirim,  although  they  were  admittedly 
older  than  this  legislation  (Ex.  xxiii.  16,  19;  xxxiv.  22,  26). 

^See  Amos  iv.  5,  v.  22,  25;  1  Kings  viii.  64;  2  Kings  xvi.  13, 
15  (in  both  of  which  verses  the  drink-offering  also  appears, 
though  that  is  not  mentioned  in  Deuteronomy  either)  ;  Judges  xiii. 
19,  23 ;  and  cf.  preceding  footnote  as  to  MkJcurim. 


188  Peyitateuchal  Studies 

tice    (e.g.  Ex.  xx.  24-26).     I  mention  this  merely  to  avoid 
the  possibility  of  being  misunderstood. 

In  striking  contrast  to  the  sacrifices  of  which  we  have 
spoken,  stand  the  sin-offering  and  guilt-offering.  The  Pen- 
tateuch, instead  of  assuming  that  they  will  be  brought,  lays 
down  the  occasions  on  which  they  are  to  be  brought  (e.g. 
Lev.  iv.).  We  have  here  substantive  law  as  well  as  pro- 
cedure. This  inevitably  suggests  that  these  are  new  sacrifices 
which  were  unknown  in  Israel  before  the  age  of  Moses.  But 
they  are  also  extremely  technical  and  detailed ;  and  it  is  prob- 
ably for  that  reason  that  we  find  them  wholly  contained  in 
portions  of  the  Law  which  would  reach  the  people  only 
through  the  priests.  But,  be  that  as  it  may,  Dr.  Driver's  sur- 
prise that  they  are  not  mentioned  in  Deut.  xii.  is  entirely  un- 
reasonable. The  portion  of  that  chapter  to  which  he  refers 
is  devoted  not  to  a  catalogue  of  existing  sacrifices,^  but  to  a 
command  that  certain  sacrifices  were  to  be  brought  to  the 
religious  center.  In  the  case  of  the  sin-offering  and  guilt- 
offering  the  command  was  unnecessary,  since  they  could  not, 
by  any  possibility,  be  offered  without  a  priest.  An  ordinary 
animal  sacrifice  could  be  offered  by  a  layman,  —  at  any  rate, 
in  certain  cases,  —  but  only  a  priest  could  make  atonement 
for  sin.  The  Pentateuch  never  contemplates  any  unlawful 
priesthood,  and  it  never  provides  any  check  on  the  power  of 
the  priests,  which  was  consequently  abused.  Hence  —  par- 
ticularly if  these  were  new  sacrifices  —  no  danger  of  their 
being  offered  anywhere  but  at  the  religious  center  could  rea- 
sonably be  foreseen.  It  is  the  duty  of  a  legislator  to  provide 
for  anticipated  evils,  not  to  draft  regulations  which  shall  look 
symmetrical  on  paper. 

^  See  preceding  footnote.  Moreover,  bikkurim  and  reshith  (first- 
ripe  fruits  and  first-fruits)  are  not  mentioned  here,  although  they 
certainly  existed.     See,   further,  Deut.   xviii.  4;   xxvi.   1-11. 


Deuteronomy  and  the  Arguments  from  Silence       189 

The  last  of  the  three  overlapping  groups  of  the  priestly 
legislation  consists  of  technical  matters  and  details.     Of  these 
the  law  of  leprosy  is  an  admirable  example.     It  will  be  seen 
at  a  glance  that  the  regulations  are  far  too  specialized  and 
complicated  to  be  administered  by  a  chance  elder.     Again, 
matters  relating  to  Nazirites,  the  rules  as  to  jealousy,  pro- 
hibited degrees  of  relationship  and  many  other  matters  were 
too  elaborate   and  technical   to  be   enforced   or   even  taught 
without  the  assistance  of  a  special  class.     And  this  leads  me 
to  speak  of  the  occasional  rules  of  jural  law  which  are  to  be 
found  in  Leviticus  xviii.-xx.     Chapter  xviii.  contains  but  one 
verse  which  may  be  a  jural  law   (ver.  29).     The  penalty  is 
expressed  in  the  words  "  shall  be  cut  off  from  among  their 
people."     In  view  of  such  passages  as  xx.  3,  "  I  will  cut  him 
off  from  among  his  people,"  it  is  impossible  to  say  with  cer- 
tainty whether  or  not  this  verse  contains  a  direction  to  the 
courts.    A  perusal  of  the  whole  chapter  shows  that  the  power 
of  the  courts  is  not  the  force  on  which  reliance  is  primarily 
placed  to  secure  obedience  to  the  commandments  embodied  in 
it ;  but  it  is  quite  easy  to  understand  how  the  secondary  means 
of  obtaining  obedience  came  to  be  mentioned  in  a  short  exhor- 
tation to  observe  the  commands  there  laid  down.     In  the  case 
of  chapter  xix.,  the  exceptions  to  the  principles   enunciated 
above  are  merely  formal,  not  real.     In  verses  5-8  we  find 
rules  relating  to  peace-offerings ;  and  it  is  said  that   if  one 
eat  of  a  peace-offering  at  all  on   the  third  day,  "  that   soul 
shall   be    cut   off    from    his    people."     This    probably    means 
that    the    death-penalty    is    to    be    inflicted;    but    the    context 
makes  it  clear  that  the  passage  is  primarily  a  rule  of  sac- 
rifice,   and    only    incidentally    a    jural    law.     Similarly    verse 
20    requires,    not    that    the    courts    shall    take    action    in    a 
specified  case,  but  that  they  shall  take  no  action ;  "  they  shall 


190  Pentateuchal  Studies 

not  be  put  to  death  .  .  .  and  he  shall  bring  his  guilt-offering." 
In  so  far  as  this  is  a  rule  prohibiting  the  courts  from  acting, 
it  may  be  regarded  as  jural  law ;  but,  obviously,  in  the  main 
it  is  a  sacrificial  law.  Chapter  xx.  also  contains  some  jural 
laws;  but  they  are  mixed  up  with  commands  to  which  no 
penalty  is  attached,  and  with  laws  of  God  which  are  to  be 
enforced  by  such  sentences  as  "  they  shall  die  childless."  A 
comparison  of  the  jural  laws  with  the  provisions  on  the  same 
topics  contained  in  Exodus  and  Deuteronomy  admirably  illus- 
trates the  manner  in  which  Exodus  is  confined  to  the  tersest 
possible  utterances,  and  how,  where  detailed  rules  were  de- 
sirable, the  priests  were,  if  possible,  used  for  their  transmis- 
sion. The  legal  contents  of  this  chapter  are  entirely  concerned 
with  offenses  that  stand  in  special  relation  to  religion,  — 
giving  children  to  Molech,  witchcraft,  and  sexual  offenses. 
A  glance  at  the  following  table  will  bring  out  two  points  that 
I  have  endeavored  to  emphasize:  first,  the  extreme  terseness 
of  the  Sinaitic  covenant  document,  and  its  suitability  for 
memorizing;  and,  secondly,  the  tendency  to  put  details  that 
were  connected  with  religion,  not  in  one  of  the  covenants,  but 
in  portions  of  the  Law  that  were  to  be  taught  by  the  priests : — 

Ex.  xxi.  17  (a  jural  law)  5  words 

Ex.  XX.   14   (command)    2      " 

Ex.  xxii.  19  (18)  jural 
law  6      " 

Ex.  xxii.  18  (17)  (com- 
mand) 3      " 

With  regard  to  the  relation  of  this  chapter  to  Deuteron- 
omy, it  should  be  added  that  two  passages  in  this  chapter 
(verses  2-5  and  11)  have  parallels  in  that  book  (Deut.  xviii. 
10  and  xxii.  30).  In  both  cases  the  jural  laws  are  to  be 
found  in  Leviticus  xx.,  and  Deuteronomy  merely  lays  down 
commands   which   would   influence   public   opinion.      Further, 


Lev.  XX. 

9 

16  words 

Lev.  XX. 

10 

15 

Lev.  XX. 

15-16 

27       " 

Lev.  XX. 

27 

16      " 

Deuteronomy  and  the  Arguments  from  Silence       191 

some  of  the  other  jural  laws  contained  in  this  chapter  are 
directed  against  crimes  that  are  also  dealt  with  in  the  curses 
of  Deuteronomy.  The  other  offenses  mentioned  are  also  kin- 
dred to  those  denounced  in  Deuteronomy  and  Exodus.  So 
that,  altogether,  when  this  chapter  is  examined,  it  affords  an 
interesting  illustration  of  what  has  already  been  said,  viz. 
that  principles  and  matters  intended  to  influence  public  opin- 
ion are  found  in  one  or  other  of  the  two  covenants,  while  re- 
ligious details  are  dealt  with  by  the  priestly  teaching. 

It  will  now  be  obvious  why  there  is  no  occasion  in  Deu- 
teronomy to  mention  the  distinction  between  priests  and 
Levites,^  and  why  it  is  not  to  this  book  that  we  must  look  for 
sacrificial  details.  One  point,  however,  calls  for  special  no- 
tice. Dr.  Driver  has  obviously  been  struck  by  the  fact  that 
the  Day  of  Atonement  is  not  mentioned  in  Deuteronomy.  I 
believe  that  the  views  held  by  the  critics  have  in  this  instance 
been  colored  very  largely  by  their  knowledge  of  modern 
Judaism.  At  present  the  Jewish  year  does  culminate  in  the 
Day  of  Atonement;  indeed  (and  this  curiously  illustrates  a 
point  that  I  wish  to  make),  that  institution  has  such  a  grip 
of  the  Jew  that  it  is  the  last  observance  that  he  throws  off. 
The  great  Fast  is  kept  by  many  a  man  who  habitually  neg- 
lects sabbaths,  festivals,  dietary  laws,  and  all  the  other  Jew- 
ish observances.  But  we  must  not  allow  ourselves  to  think 
that,  therefore,  it  should  be  dwelt  on  repeatedly  in  the  Pen- 
tateuch. On  the  contrary,  there  was  every  reason  why  it 
should  be  passed  over  lightly.  It  laid  no  particular  strain  on 
the  people  and  required  no  great  sacrifice  of  time,  labor,  or 
property.  It  occurred  only  once  a  year;  it  was  therefore 
not  so  likely  to  be  broken  as  the  weekly  Sabbath.  It  called 
for  no  migration  from  home ;  and  hence  it  was  not  as  burden- 
^  See,  however,  infra,  No.  20. 


192  Pentateuchal  Studies 

some  as  any  one  of  the  three  festivals.  It  involved  no  loss 
of  property;  and  it  was  consequently  far  less  onerous  than 
the  law  of  firstling-s.  Where,  indeed,  was  the  temptation  to 
break  it?  To  this  must  be  added  two  further  remarks.  It  is  true 
that  the  Israelite  was  to  rest  and  afflict  his  soul  on  that  day; 
but  it  is  noteworthy  that  he  is  not  required  to  take  other  ac- 
tion of  any  kind,  either  by  bringing  a  sacrifice,  or  by  offering 
some  special  prayer,  or  by  making  a  pilgrimage.  No  doubt 
in  Leviticus  xxiii.  27  we  find  the  words  "  ye  shall  offer  an 
offering  made  by  fire  unto  the  Lord  " ;  but  the  reference  here 
would  seem  to  be  not  to  any  offerings  of  individual  Israelites, 
but  to  the  public  or  general  offerings  ordained  in  Numbers 
xxix.  8.  On  the  other  hand,  a  glance  at  Leviticus  xvi.  shows 
that  that  chapter  contains  elaborate  directions  as  to  the  cere- 
monial to  be  observed  at  the  religious  center.  Important  as  the 
Day  of  Atonement  undoubtedly  was,  it  is  clear  that  it  could  not 
originally  have  played  any  great  part  in  the  life  of  the  indi- 
vidual or  required  much  from  him.  The  other  remark  I  wish 
to  make  goes  to  the  root  of  many  observations  of  the  critics. 
They  have  assumed  that  Deuteronomy  xvi.  contains  a  calen- 
dar.^    Even  on  their  own  theories,  this  is  manifestly  untrue, 

^Dr.  Carpenter  in  the  Oxford  Hexateuch,  vol.  i.  pp.  53-54:  "The 
calendar  of  the  annual  feasts  is  repeated  no  less  than  four  times. 
It  is  ordained  in  nearly  parallel  terms  in  the  two  collections  of 
Covenant-words  Ex  xxiii  and  xxxiv.  It  is  enjoined  with  rich  hor- 
tatory additions  in  Deut.  xvi.  It  is  elaborately  expounded  in  Lev 
xxiii,  where  two  new  items  of  his^  sisrnificance  are  added  to  the 
list." 

"With  regard  to  Ex.  xxxiv.,  it  will  be  seen  that,  on  the  renewal 
of  the  covenant,  which  had  been  avoided  by  t'lie  worship  of  the 
golden  calf,  certain  ordinances  of  the  Sinaitic  covenant  were  re- 
capitulated. The  point  to  notice  is  that  the  jural  laws  which 
would  be  enforced  by  the  courts,  and  the  Decalogue,  which  had 
been  spoken  by  God,  are  omitted,  while  stress  is  laid  on  what  may 
be  called  religious  precepts  in  a  narrow  sense.  So  far  as  can  be 
judged,   it  would   seem   that  some  of  these  were  particularly  bur- 


Deuteronomy  and  the  Arguments  from  Silence       193 

because  no  mention  is  made  of  either  sabbaths  or  new  moons 
in  that  chapter.  Hence  it  would  be  impossible  to  draw  any 
conclusion  from  the  fact  that  the  Day  of  Atonement  is  not 
mentioned.  But  an  examination  of  the  chapter  shows  that 
it  is  mainly  directed  to  insuring  three  annual  pilgrimages  to 
the  religious  capital  on  the  three  great  Festivals  and  to 
giving  the  necessary  incidental  directions,  so  that  any  mention 
of  an  occasion  on  which  the  Israelite  was  not  to  make  a 
pilgrimage  or  bring  an  offering  would  be  utterly  out  of 
place. ^ 

In  conclusion,  we  may  illustrate  the  practical  application 
of  what  has  been  said  by  examining  the  distribution  of  the 
provisions  relating  to  firstlings.  First,  the  great  historical 
event  of  the  slaying  of  the  first-born,  and  the  consequent  de- 
liverance from  Egypt,  is  made  the  occasion  of  a  command  to 
the  people  to  sacrifice  all  firstlings  (Ex.  xiii.  1  ff.).  It  requires 
no  great  imagination  to  realize  the  efifect  of  this  appeal  to 
the  gratitude  and  the  historical  consciousness  of  the  people. 
Then,  when  the  people  have  proved  false  to  their  covenant 
with  God,  advantage  is  taken  of  the  renewal  of  the  compact 
to  impress  upon  them  the  obligation  once  more  (Ex.  xxxiv. 
19fif.).  In  the  law  of  redemption  we  naturally  find  some 
provisions  about  the  redemption  of  firstlings  (Lev.  xxvii. 
26-27),  and  in  Numbers  we  meet  with  enactments  regulating 
the  due  payable  to  the  priests  (Num.  v.  9-10),  and  its  subse- 

densome,  —  like  the  law  of  firstlings,  the  Sabbath,  and  the  pil- 
grimage Festivals,  —  while  there  must  have  existed  very  consid- 
erable danger  of  others  being  broken,  owing  to  the  circumstances 
of  the  age  and  the  disposition  of  the  people,  e.g.  the  prohibition  of 
idolatrous  worship. 

^  With  regard  to  Dr.  Driver's  argument  as  to  the  non-mention  of 
the  Tent  of  Meeting,  I  would  point  out  that  it  was  a  tent,  and  not 
designed  to  be  permanent ;  so  that  it  would  not  naturally  find  a 
place  in  Deuteronomy  by  the  side  of  the  Ark  and  the  priesthood. 


194  Pentateiichal  Studies 

quent  disposition  (Num.  xviii.  15-18).  Lastly,  in  the  great 
popular  book  of  Deuteronomy,  which  on  the  eve  of  the  entry 
into  Canaan  lays  stress  on  the  law  of  the  religious  capital, 
we  find  commands  to  sacrifice  the  firstlings  there,  and  not 
locally  (Deut.  xii. ;  xv.  19  fif.)^  It  would  be  easy,  did  space 
permit,  to  take  other  examples,  and  work  them  out  similarly. 
It  may  seem  to  some  that  I  have  wandered  unnecessarily 
far  from  the  subject  with  which  I  started,  or,  at  any  rate, 
that  I  have  chosen  the  longest  road.  In  such  a  criticism  there 
would  be  a  measure  of  truth ;  but  yet  it  would  be  only  a 
measure.  It  is  impossible  to  read  the  works  of  the  higher 
critics  without  seeing  that  most  of  their  case  rests  on  their 
exhaustive  ignorance  of  legal  matters.  It  is  submitted  that 
the  true  way  of  dispelling  that  ignorance  is  by  bringing  legal 
training  and  legal  knowledge  to  bear  on  the  manifold  prob- 
lems of  the  Mosaic  legislation. 

^See  the  Churchman,  (London),  for  July,  190G,  pp.  427-i30. 


XVII 
DEUTERONOMY  AND  THE  ARGUMENT  FROM  STYLE 

[From  the  Princeton  Theological  Review,   October,   1907.] 

"  In  the  ancient  world  the  style  was  not  the  man  himself,  but 
a  garment  that  he  could  change  at  will." — Nobden. 

The  hig-her  critics  of  a  certain  school  invariably  represent 
the  case  for  the  division  of  the  Pentateuch  into  a  number  of 
documentary  sources  as  resting  not  on  any  single  line  of  in- 
vestigation but  on  the  converging  testimony  of  a  number  of 
different  inquiries.  Two  of  these  perhaps  may  be  said  to 
enjoy  a  sort  of  preeminence,  though  for  different  reasons  — 
the  historico-legal  and  the  literary.  I  have  dealt  with  the 
former  on  many  previous  occasions.^  In  the  present  paper  it 
is  my  purpose  to  treat  of  the  latter  with  special  reference  to 
Deuteronomy.  In  doing  so  I  shall  endeavor  to  put  my  case 
in  such  a  form  as  to  make  it  intelligible  to  all  educated  read- 
ers, whether  they  be  Hebraists  or  not.  For  reasons  that  will 
shortly  appear,  this  course  is  very  much  easier  to  follow  than 
might  generally  be  supposed. 

An  inquiry  of  this  sort  is  the  more  desirable  because  I  have 
quite  recently  given  expression  to  my  conviction  that  the  Pen- 
tateuch is  not  primarily  a  piece  of  literature.  What  part,  it 
may  naturally  be  asked,  do  literary  considerations  play  in 
determining  the  form  of  those  portions  with  which  I  am 
chiefly  concerned  —  the  legislation  and  the  passages  that  can- 
not be  detached  from  that  legislation?    I  am  the  more  ready 

^  Studies  in  Biblical  Law ;  Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism ;  and 
The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch.     See,  also,  the  Churchman  (London), 
December,    1905 ;    May,   July,    September,    1906 ;   March,   April,   May, 
1907;  Bibliotheca   Sacra  for  October,  1907. 
195 


196  Pentateuchal  Studies 

to  essay  the  task  of  answering  this  question  because  I  believe 
that  Hterary  criticism  —  in  the  best  sense  of  the  term  —  will 
form  an  integral  portion  of  the  conservative  case  of  the  fu- 
ture. We  may  fairly  presume  that,  long  after  the  Alosaic 
authenticity  of  the  Pentateuchal  legislation  is  universally 
recognized,  certain  dififerences  of  style,  together  with  the  rea- 
sons for  them,  will  be  noted  by  those  who  devote  to  the  Bible 
loving  study.  The  future  historian  of  biblical  science  will 
doubtless  credit  the  higher  critics  with  having  drawn  atten- 
tion to  many  interesting  phenomena,  even  while  reprobating 
the  fantastic  theories,  the  inability  to  weigh  evidence,  and  the 
extravagant  exaggerations  that  have  marked  their  career. 
And  this  consideration  helps  to  make  clear  the  nature  of 
the  task  that  must  be  accomplished  if  the  documentary  theory 
of  the  Pentateuch  is  to  be  dethroned.  A  successful  refutation 
cannot  be  merely  destructive :  it  must  be  also  —  and  princi- 
pally —  constructive.  The  reason  for  this  is  not  far  to  seek. 
If  a  hypothesis  is  proved  to  be  untenable  while  no  explana- 
tion is  offered  of  the  phenomena  for  which  it  was  designed  to 
account,  another  theory  must  inevitably  arise  to  fill  its  place. 
This  of  course  holds  good  only  where  the  phenomena  are  real. 
Where  they  are  simply  the  creation  of  an  overheated  imagin- 
ation which  has  been  allowed  to  dwell  too  long  on  insignifi- 
cant details,  a  little  timely  ridicule,  or  the  diversion  of  the 
mind  to  another  set  of  facts,  or  mere  lapse  of  time  will  be 
sufficient  to  remedy  the  evil.  It  is  because  the  so-called  liter- 
ary or  philological  argument  of  the  higher  critics  is  based  in 
part  on  phenomena  of  the  first  class  that  the  work  of  examin- 
ing this  portion  of  their  case  possesses  some  interest.  Unfor- 
tunately it  must  be  coupled  with  the  less  congenial  duty  of 
pointing  out  the  defects  in  their  methods,  equipment,  and 
reasoning. 


Deuteronomy  and  the  Argument  from  Style  197 

Our  first  task  must  be  to  inquire,  What  is  meant  by  the 
philolog-ical  or  Hterary  argument?  The  word  "  philolog-y  "  is 
often  used  to  denote  the  science  of  the  history  of  language. 
It  is  not  in  that  sense  that  the  higher  critics  generally  use  the 
term  when  the}  put  forward  their  "  philological  "  argument 
for  the  documentary  theory.  It  is  necessary  to  dwell  on  this 
point,  because  many  readers  who  are  not  Hebraists  suppose 
that  there  are  philological  grounds  (the  term  "philological" 
being  used  in  the  sense  just  indicated)  for  the  divisive  hy- 
pothesis. That  is  not  so.  Material  drawn  from  the  real  or 
supposed  history  of  the  Hebrew  language  is  scarcely  ever  put 
in  the  forefront  of  the  critical  case.  The  only  striking  excep- 
tion to  this  statement  that  occurs  to  me  is  to  be  found  in  an 
assertion  recently  made  by  Dr.  C.  A.  Briggs : — 

"  The  language  of  the  four  great  documents  is  so  different, 
that  they  must  have  been  composed  by  different  writers.  The 
difference  of  language  extends  to  a  very  large  vocabulary, 
each  of  these  documents  having  its  own  Lexicon.  And  these 
differences  are  not  merely  differences  of  synonym ;  they  are 
differences  representing  different  centuries  in  the  historical 
development  of  the  Hebrew  language.  These  documents  of  the 
Pentateuch  represent  a  language  that  did  not  exist  until  cen- 
turies after  the  death  of  Moses.  The  evidence  for  all  this  has 
been  given  only  in  part  in  Driver's  Introduction  to  the  Litera- 
ture of  the  Old  Testament,  and  in  my  Higher  Criticism  of  the 
Hexateuch,  and  many  other  recent  works ;  but  it  is  fully 
given  in  our  new  Hebrew  Lexicon,  now  completed,  in  which 
Drs.  Brown  and  Driver  and  myself  have  carefully  examined 
and  classified  the  uses  of  all  Hebrew  words  in  the  Old  Testa- 
ment according  to  their  historical  development  in  the  litera- 
ture. It  is  impossible  for  anyone  to  study  the  complete  series 
of  these  words  as  we  have  done,  without  coming  to  the  con- 


198  Pentateuchal  Studies 

elusion  which  we  have  reached  in  entire  concord,  that  Moses 
could  not  have  written  any  one  of  the  great  documents  of 
which  the  Pentateuch  is  composed."  ^ 

This  statement  is  so  entirely  exceptional  that  I  think  it  best 
to  postpone  consideration  of  it  until  we  have  examined  the 
ordinary  critical  argument.  It  will  be  observed  that  Dr. 
Briggs  himself  admits  that  "  the  evidence  for  all  this  "  is  only 
put  forward  in  part  in  the  recognized  books  on  the  subject, 
and  his  reference  to  the  new  lexicon  is  too  vague  to  be  of 
much  value.  It  will  be  best  to  examine  the  recognized  evi- 
dence before  attacking  the  newest  critical  position. 

The  following  extract  from  the  Oxford  Hexateuch  gives 
us  a  representative  statement  of  the  ordinary  argument : — 

"  But  it  may  reasonably  be  expected  that  materials  of  dif- 
ferent ages,  drawn  from  separate  sources,  will  be  marked  by 
their  own  characteristics  of  style  or  expression.  Peculiar 
turns  of  phrase,  due  to  the  vivacity  of  oral  narrative,  or  sig- 
nificant of  legal  precision,  or  repeated  by  the  impassioned 
earnestness  of  the  preacher,  may  be  found  to  coincide  with 
different  groups  of  narrative  or  law  already  distinguished 
from  each  other  by  incompatibilities  of  content.  The  recur- 
rence of  these  peculiarities  becomes  in  its  turn  a  warning ;  and 
each  additional  instance,  in  accordance  with  the  general  law  of 
probabilities,  brings  far  more  than  its  own  individual  weight. 
Moreover  their  effect  is  again  heightened  if  there  is  reason 
to  believe  that  they  can  be  in  any  way  connected  with  other 
forces  of  thought  and  life.  The  journalist  who  should  lightly 
talk  of  '  the  tendency  not  ourselves  '  or  of  '  sweetness  and 
light '  might  safely  be  placed  with  Matthew  Arnold  in  the 
second  half  of  the  Victorian  age.  The  teacher  who  dwelt  on 
'  the  silences  '  and  '  the  eternities  '  could  not  have  taught  be- 

*The  Papal  Commission  and  the  Pentateuch,  pp.  11  and  12. 


Deuteronomy  and  the  Argument  from  Style  199 

fore  Carlyle.  A  cause  must  be  found  for  the  different  philo- 
sophical vocabulary  of  Coleridge  compared  with  that  of  Hume. 
The  devotional  utterance  of  Watts  and  Doddridge  is  couched 
in  a  different  idiom  from  that  of  Newman  and  Faber.  In  the 
same  way  if  one  group  of  chapters  which  there  is  independent 
reason  to  assign  to  the  seventh  century,  shows  marked  affin- 
ities of  expression  with  Jeremiah,  and  another  group  with 
Ezekiel,  it  may  be  possible  to  explain  the  resemblances  on  the 
hypothesis  of  the  indebtedness  of  the  prophets,  but  the  student 
must  also  consider  the  probability  that  they  may  be  due  to 
the  influences  of  separate  religious  schools."  ^ 

It  will  be  seen  that  nothing  is  here  said  of  phonetic  evolu- 
tion or  the  history  of  words.  The  argument  is  not  philolog- 
ical in  the  narrow  sense  of  the  word.  But  attention  is  drawn 
to  the  fact  that  there  may  be  differences  of  style,  and  it  is 
suggested  that  in  certain  circumstances  there  may  be  some 
connection  between  these  and  other  forces  of  thought  and 
life.-  We  must  notice,  too,  that  in  this  passage  —  which  gives 
us  a  very  fair  and  moderate  exposition  of  the  line  of  argu- 
ment adopted  by  most  higher  critics  —  several  qualifications 
are  introduced.  It  is  first  supposed  that  different  groups  of 
narrative  or  law  are  already  distinguished  by  incompati- 
bilities  of   content.     That   is  to   say,   the   writer   in  the   first 

^The  Hexateuch,  edited  by  J.  Estlin  Carpenter  and  G.  Harford- 
Battersby   (1900),  vol.  i.  p.  15. 

''A  writer  in  the  Church  of  Ireland  Gazette  makes  the  follow- 
ing interesting  comment :  "A  rather  nice  point  is  missed  in  con- 
nection with  the  quotation  from  the  Oxford  Hexateuch : — '  The 
journalist  who  should  lightly  talk  of  ...  "  sweetness  and  light " 
might  safely  be  placed  with  Matthew  Arnold  in  the  second  half 
of  the  Victorian  age.'  The  precarious  nature  of  the  literary  argu- 
ment is  well  illustrated  here;  for  this  identical  expression  is,  of 
course,  found  in  Dean  Swift : — '  The  two  noblest  things,  which  are 
sweetness  and  light.' " 


200  Pentatetichal  Studies 

instance  assigns  to  the  stylistic  argument  an  ancillary  char- 
acter. Then  he  very  fairly  admits  that  resemblances  between 
Jeremiah  or  Ezekiel  on  the  one  hand  and  certain  portions 
of  the  Pentateuch  on  the  other  may  possibly  be  explained 
on  the  hypothesis  of  the  indebtedness  of  the  prophets:  and  a 
moment's  thought  will  convince  any  impartial  reader  that 
such  a  view  contains  nothing  that  is  improbable.  If,  for  ex- 
ample, Deuteronomy  —  whether  a  genuine  work  of  Moses  or 
a  recent  literary  forgery  —  was  discovered  (or  rediscovered) 
in  the  time  of  Jeremiah,  it  can  occasion  no  surprise  that  it 
should  have  exercised  a  powerful  influence  on  his  style.  A 
further  claim  is,  however,  made  for  the  argument.  "  The 
recurrence  of  these  peculiarities  becomes  in  its  turn  a  warn- 
ing " ;  in  plain  English,  the  Pentateuch  is  dissected  in  part 
on  grounds  of  style. 

That  an  argument  from  style  is  necessarily  very  subjective 
is  a  truism  that  need  not  be  labored.  But  experience  in  re- 
futing other  branches  of  the  higher  criticism  suggests  the 
necessity  of  inquiring  whether,  in  this  instance,  those  qualities 
which  should  mark  all  scholarly  work  have  characterized  the 
critical  investigations.  I  can  well  remember  my  experiences 
on  first  entering  on  the  consideration  of  the  authorship  of  the 
Pentateuch.  Legal  studies  had  convinced  me  that  there  ex- 
isted a  quantity  of  material  from  which  the  authenticity  of  the 
Mosaic  legislation  could  be  proved,  and  I  read  the  Oxford 
Hexateuch  for  the  purpose  of  ascertaining  on  what  the  crit- 
ics relied.  While  it  was  natural  to  expect  that  in  legal  matters 
the  writers  would  be  very  much  at  sea,  I  yet  supposed  that 
in  all  other  respects  they  would  present  me  with  work  that 
would  not  fall  short  of  the  best  achievements  in  other 
fields  of  study.  As  I  read  on,  this  impression  was  deep- 
ened.    I    found    that    their    conclusions    were    the    result    of 


Deuteronomy  and  the  Argument  from  Style  201 

centuries  of  labor.  I  saw  great  names  cited.  Spinoza  had 
discerned  certain  difficulties  in  simple  narrative.  Now  if, 
since  1671,  the  best  brains  that  had  studied  the  Bible 
had  been  unable  to  answer  what  were  alleged  to  be  glar- 
ing discrepancies  in  simple  narrative,  was  it  not  certain 
that  no  adequate  reply  could  be  found?  But  suddenly 
I  came  across  assertions  that  no  reverence  for  great  names, 
no  faith  in  the  results  of  century-long  study,  no  belief 
in  the  efficacy  of  controversy  or  the  efficiency  of  controver- 
sialists, could  induce  me  to  accept  without  independent  inves- 
tigation. Thus  I  read  that  "  in  the  narrative  of  the  plagues 
it  will  be  found  that  one  set  of  stories  places  the  Israelites  in 
Goshen,  where  the  wonders  that  are  wrought  in  Egypt  do  not 
affect  them  Ex  viii  22  ix  26;  while  another  locates  them 
among  the  Egyptians  and  secures  them  miraculous  exemption 
X  21-23."  ^  The  results  of  my  investigation  of  this  statement 
will  be  found  elsewhere :  ^  here  it  is  sufficient  to  point  out  that 
a  few  such  assertions  rapidly  succeed  in  teaching  the  most 
unsuspicious  of  readers  to  accept  no  statement  of  fact  of  the 
higher  critics  without  first  testing  it  for  himself.  I  well  re- 
member the  horror  produced  in  my  mind  by  the  results  of 
my  efforts  to  verify  the  first  batch  of  improbable  statements 
to  which  I  devoted  my  attention  —  a  horror  which  was  only 
heightened  by  the  transparent  honesty  of  the  writers  who 
made  them.  I  can  offer  no  account  at  all  of  some  of  the 
phenomena  I  have  observed,  but  in  some  cases  a  knowledge  of 
the  origin  of  the  statements  elucidates  the  mystery :  and  as 
this  is  a  matter  that  must  gravely  affect  the  views  taken  of 
the  higher  criticism,  it  may  be  well  to  devote  some  lines  to 
discussing  the  subject.    As  Dr.  Driver's  "Deuteronomy"  will 

^  Oxford  Hexateuch,   vol.   i.  p.   32. 

-  Studies  in  Biblical  Law,  pp.  34-35,  and  Essays  in  Pentateuchal 
Criticism,  pp.   57  ft. 


302  PentatcuclKil  Studies 

hereafter  be  taken  as  representative  of  the  critical  position,  it 
is  natural  to  select  illustrations  from  that  work,  when  possible. 

The  first  cause  of  error  to  which  attention  may  be  drawn 
is  the  habit  of  borrowing  statements  from  other  writers  — 
usually  without  any  indication  that  they  are  not  original. 
Here  is  an  illustration :  "  There  are  only  three  facts  mentioned 
in  Dt.  for  which  no  parallel  is  to  be  found  in  JE:  i.  23  the 
number  (twelve)  of  the  spies  (Nu.  xiii  2-lG  P)  ;  x  22  the 
number  of  souls  (seventy)  with  which  Jacob  came  down  into 
Egypt  (Gn.  xlvi  27  Ex.  i  5  P)  ;  and  x  3  acacia-wood  as  the 
material  of  the  Ark  (Ex.  xxv  10  P)."^  Dr.  Driver  is  here 
arguing  for  the  dependence  of  Deuteronomy  on  those  portions 
of  the  Pentateuch  which  he  assigns  to  the  "  sources  "  called 
JE,  and  its  independence  of  the  other  "  source "  called  P. 
Now  whether  the  Pentateuch  should  be  divided  between  these 
(or  any)  sources  is  a  matter  of  opinion;  but,  once  the  division 
is  effected,  the  question  whether  D  mentions  only  three  events 
that  are  not  to  be  paralleled  from  JE  is  a  question  of  fact. 
Though  I  have  not  searched  Deuteronomy  for  the  purpose,  I 
can,  with  the  help  of  Dr.  Driver's  own  notes,  suggest  at  least 
four  more.  viz.  iii.  27,  the  permission  to  view  the  promised 
land  from  afar  (see  Driver,  p.  60)  ;  viii.  2,  the  period  (forty 
years)  spent  in  the  wilderness  (see  Driver,  p.  106)  ;  ii.  2-14, 
the  fact  that  the  years  in  the  wilderness  were  spent  in  wan- 
dering, Num.  xxxii.  13  P,  cf.  Num.  xiv.  33  P,  where  some 
read  "wanderers"  for  "shepherds"-;  and  xxix  12  (13), 
the  promise  to  be  to  Abraham  for  a  God.  The  last  two  in- 
stances are  remarkable  for  different  reasons.  The  wandering 
is  a  test  case  of  first-rate  importance ;  for,  in  Dr.  Driver's 

^Driver,  Deuteronomy,  p.  xvi. 

*This  only  involves  the  change  of  a  single  letter  in  Hebrew. 


Deuteronomy  and  the  Argument  from  Style  203 

opinion,  JE  represents  the  Israelites  as  having  remained  sta- 
tionary at  Kaclesh  for  some  thirty-eight  years  (see  Driver, 
pp.  32-33),  and  is  in  hopeless  conflict  with  Deuteronomy.  I 
have  elsewhere  ^  shown  that  the  text  of  Numbers  is  not  in 
order,  and  that  when  scientific  textual  criticism  is  applied,  the 
difficulties  disappear;  but,  for  the  purpose  of  testing  Dr. 
Driver's  statements,  we  must,  of  course,  postulate  his  position, 
and  assume  that  there  are  three  irreconcilable  documents  JE, 
D,  and  P.  On  that  assumption  it  is  vital  to  the  purpose  in 
hand  to  note  that  D  agrees  with  P  and  contradicts  JE. 

The  other  point  is  also  very  instructive.  In  commenting  on 
Deuteronomy  xxix.  12  (13),  Dr.  Driver  expressly  admits  (p. 
323)  that  the  promise  "  to  be  to  Abraham  for  a  God  "  is  found 
in  Genesis  xvii.  7,  S  (P),  but  hastens  to  add  that  "  there  is  no 
mention  of  a  corresponding  promise  tO'  Isaac  or  Jacob."  The 
next  sentence  must  be  transcribed :  "  But  no  doubt  the  reference 
is  to  passages  such  as  Gn.  xxii  16-18  xxvi  24  xxviii  13  f.  (JE), 
the  conditions  involved  tacitly  in  the  promises  there  recorded 
being  converted  here  into  a  formula  expressing  them  dis- 
tinctly." So  that  when,  on  his  own  showing,  a  reference  is 
to  P,  Dr.  Driver  finds  an  allusion  to  something  "  involved 
tacitly  "  in  passages  which  might  contain  the  desired  state- 
ments, but  unfortunately  do  not.  Attention  should  here  be 
directed  to  the  bias  that  characterizes  this  note.  It  affords 
the  key  to  many  problems,  and  goes  far  to  explain  the  gen- 
eral untrustworthiness  of  the  work  of  the  higher  critics. 

Now,  at  first  sight.  Dr.  Driver's  statement  appears  quite 
inexplicable.  What,  it  may  be  asked,  could  have  led  him  to 
assert  that  only  tJirec  facts  were  mentioned  in  Deuteronomy 
for  which  no  parallel  is  to  be  found  in  JE,  if  in  his  own  notes 
he  recognized  that  there  were  actually  many  more?  The  an- 
^  Essays   in  Peutateuchal   Criticism,   pp.   114-1.38. 


204  Pentatenchal  Studies 

swer  is  that  the  writings  which  pass  under  Dr.  Driver's  name 
are,  in  fact,  often  composite.  It  is  not  usual  to  dissect  the 
publications  of  contemporary  writers  in  the  way  in  which 
the  higher  critics  dissect  the  Pentateuch;  but  this  should  not 
blind  us  to  the  facts  of  the  case.  When  Dr.  Driver  makes 
his  assertion  about  the  three  facts  he  is  apparently  copying 
Cornill  —  seemingly  without  any  independent  investigation 
of  the  accuracy  of  that  author's  statement.  Unfortunately  he 
gives  not  the  slightest  hint  that  he  is  basing  himself  on  the 
dictum  of  another  writer. 

Next,  the  accuracy  and  trustworthiness  of  the  critical  work 
are  greatly  impaired  by  a  cause  that  has  already  been  touched 
upon  —  an  overwhelming  bias.  As  already  explained,  Dr. 
Driver  believes  that  D  —  the  main  source  of  Deuteronomy  — 
was  dependent  on  "  JE  "  and  independent  of  "  P  "  (including 
"H").  He  appears  to  regard  the  argument  from  style  as 
falling  imder  two  heads :  ( 1 )  the  argument  from  words  and 
phrases,  and  (2)  the  argument  from  rhythm.  He  remarks 
(p.  Ixxvii)  that  the  book  "presents  comparatively  few  ex- 
ceptional words,"  and  he  presents  us  with  the  first  part  of 
his  stylistic  argument  in  the  shape  of  a  list  of  "  the  most 
noticeable  words  or  phrases  characteristic  of  Deuteronomy." 
This  embraces  some  seventy  numbered  sections,  and  covers 
nearly  six  pages  of  his  introduction.  The  first  sixteen  may,  in 
Dr.  Driver's  opinion,  "  have  been  suggested  to  the  author " 
by  certain  sections  of  "  JE."  Now,  among  these,  I  find  the 
following:  "  The  covenant  (nnn)  either  with  the  patriarchs, 
or  with  Israel  (expressing  a  fundamental  theological  idea  of 
Dt.)."  Dr.  Driver  then  gives  the  references  in  Deuteronomy 
and  "  JE  "  (p.  Ixxix,  No.  8).  But  he  does  not  mention  that 
in  "  P  "  the  word  is  also  very  frequent  in  covenant  passages, 
occurring,  for  example,  no  less  than  three  times  in  a  single 


Deuteronomy  and  the  Argument  from  Style  205 

verse  (Lev.  xxvi.  42)  ;  that  some  of  the  most  important  cove- 
nants are  narrated  in  "  P  "  only,  and  that  it  is  not  less  a  fun- 
damental theolog-ical  idea  in  "  P  "  —  and  for  that  matter  in 
"  JE  "  —  than  in  ''  D."  It  may  be  open  to  question  whether 
collections  of  words  have  the  probative  value  attributed  to 
them  by  the  higher  critics ;  but,  if  they  are  to  be  used  at  all, 
the  whole  of  the  relevant  facts  should  be  fully  and  impar- 
tially stated. 

What  has  been  said  about  the  inaccuracy  of  the  critical 
work  applies  to  the  other  branches  of  their  case  as  much  as 
to  the  argument  from  style.  So  do  some  of  the  other  con- 
siderations that  must  be  urged :  but,  owing  to  the  special 
character  of  their  argument,  our  illustrations  of  the  other 
causes  that  are  operative  to  render  their  labors  nugatory  will 
be  drawn  exclusively  from  this  part  of  their  work. 

First,  then,  their  selection  of  words  frequently  causes  pro- 
found amazement.  Take  the  following  from  an  argument 
in  the  Oxford  Hexateuch  as  to  the  first  seven  chapters  of 
Leviticus :  "Attention  may  also  be  called  to  the  large  group 
of  cultus  terms  and  formulas,  the  constant  repetition  of  which 
is  characteristic  of  the  legal  style  of  P:  thus,  Aaron's  sons, 
atonement,  without  blemish  {perfect),  bring  near  {offer,  pre- 
sent), burn,  burn  with  fire,  clean,  guilt  offering,  heave  offer- 
ing, holy,  kill,  lay  his  hand  on,  meal  offering,  oblation,  offering 
made  by  fire,  sacrifice  of  peace  offerings,"  etc.  (vol.  ii.  p. 
144).  Tt  will  be  noted  that  all  the  above  are  technical  terms 
or  terms  that  are  peculiarly  appropriate  in  regulations  for 
sacrifice  at  the  religious  capital.  This  is  emphasized  if  we 
take  the  words  that  might  appear  to  an  English  reader  to  be 
general  words,  and  follow  up  the  remarks  made  about  them 
in  the  Oxford  Hexateuch  itself.     Thus,  on  the  word  "  burn  " 


206  Pentatcuchal  Studies 

(Tt^pn)  we  find  the  following-:  "Ex  xxix  13-Num  xviii  17 
(sacrificially)  forty-four  times"  (vol.  i.  p.  210);  and  of 
"kill"  {\^TVZ*)  we  read:  "Ex  xii  6  and  onwards,  forty-two 
times,  ritually "  (vol.  i.  p.  214).^  The  argument  therefore 
amounts  to  saying  that  in  a  technical  passage  technical  terms 
are  used.  To  give  it  any  force  at  all,  it  would  be  necessary 
to  prove  either  that  "  P  "  would  have  used  these  terms  in 
narrative,  speeches,  civil  laws,  etc.,  if  he  had  composed  the 
whole  Pentateuch,  or  else  that  "  D "  or  "  JE "  would  not 
have  used  them  in  technical  sacrificial  regulations.  It  need 
scarcely  be  said  that  no  attempt  is  or  can  be  made  to  prove 
anything  of  the  sort.' 

A  second  defect  in  the  critical  work  is  due  to  the  inability 
of  its  authors  to  appreciate  the  subtle  motives  that  influence 
great  writers.  Civilians  have  a  division  of  "  things  "  that 
recurs  to  the  mind  —  fungible  things  and  non-fungible  things. 
Fungible  things  are  those  quae  ponderc,  mimero,  mcnsurave 
constant  —  things  that  are  weighed,  counted,  or  measured,  — 
such  as  money,  wine,  oil,  corn,  bronze,  silver,  gold.  Non- 
fungible  things  are  all  others.  For  the  critics,  words  are 
mere  fungible  things.  For  great  artists,  they  are  non- 
fungible.  That  is  the  secret  of  many  phenomena  that  puzzle 
modern  commentators.  Eye  and  ear  —  especially  ear  —  are 
needed  to  appreciate  the  choice  of  words ;  and  a  sense  of 
form   and   an  apprehension   of   subtle   shades   of  meaning  of 

^  In  this  latter  case  we  are  invited  to  "  contrast  J  Ex  xxxiv  25 
Num  xi  22,  RJe  Num  xiv  16,  E  Gen  xxii  10  xxxvii  31,"  but  with- 
out being  told  what  inferences,  if  any,  we  are  to  draw  from  the 
contrast.  Are  we  meant  to  infer  that  in  the  proposed  slaughter 
of  Isaac  (Gen.  xxil.),  or  in  the  prohibition  to  "kill  [R.  V.  "offer"] 
the  blood  of  my  sacrifice"  (Ex.  xxxiv.),  the  word  is  not  used  "rit- 
ually"? 

=  Instances  from  Deuteronomy  will  be  found  in  the  appendix  to 
this  paper. 


Deuteronomy  and  the  Argument  from  Style  207 

which  no  signs  are  to  be  found  in  the  critical  work.  Some 
examples  of  some  words  and  phrases  from  Deuteronomy,  the 
use  of  which  appears  to  me  to  have  been  dictated  by  consid- 
erations of  euphony,  will  be  found  in  the  appendix.  Confin- 
ing ourselves  to  mere  single'  words  or  expressions,  it  is 
impossible  to  give  instances  that  would  be  intelligible  to 
readers  who  are  not  Hebraists,  but  if  we  go  beyond  these  it 
is  easy  to  produce  a  most  convincing  example.  There  can  be 
few  English  readers  who  have  not  admired  the  sublime  open- 
ing of  the  book  of  Genesis.  Here  is  the  usual  critical  version : 
"  These  are  the  generations  of  the  heaven  and  the  earth  when 
they  were  created.  In  the  beginning,"  etc.  The  explanation 
given  by  the  Oxford  Hexateuch  should  prove  illuminating. 
"  It  has  long  been  recognized  that  the  Book  of  Genesis  is 
primarily  based  upon  a  document  containing  a  series  of  sec- 
tions introduced  by  the  formula  *  These  are  the  generations 
of  .  .  .  ■ .  .  .The  toFdhoth  [i.e.  "  generations  of."  H.  M.  W.] 
formula  of  Gen  ii  4a  is  not  appropriate  to  the  narrative  which 
follows  it  in  ii  4b  flf.,  for  this  says  nothing  about  the  creation 
of  the  heavens  or  the  earth,  but  deals  with  the  formation  of 
the  first  man  after  they  were  made.  On  the  other  hand  its 
form  and  substance  are  both  congruous  with  the  account  of 
the  creation  of  the  universe  in  i  1-ii  3.  In  other  sections, 
however,  the  formula  always  precedes  the  matter  which  it 
designates.  It  is  probable,  therefore,  that  it  originally  stood 
before  i  1,  and  was  transposed  by  the  editor  who  combined 
the  two  documents,  to  serve  as  the  link  of  combination  "  (vol. 
ii.  p.  1). 

So  not  only  words,  but  sections  and  sentences,  are  to  the 
critics  fungible  things  —  things  quae  pondere,  numero,  men- 
surave  constant.  If  I  borrow  a  sovereign,  I  am  under  an 
obligation   to    pay   back   a    sovereign  —  any    sovereign  —  not 


208  Pentatcuchal  Studies 

necessarily  the  actual  coin  I  borrow.  All  are  legal  tender. 
And  similarly  with  the  book  of  Genesis.  If  I  do  not  begin 
with  one  sentence,  I  must  begin  with  another.  All  are  legal 
tender,  and  literary  considerations  —  using  the  word  "  liter- 
ary "  in  its  best  sense  —  do  not  enter  into  the  question.  But 
as  all  sovereigns  conform  to  a  certain  type,  so  must  all  the 
sections  of  "  P  "  in  Genesis.  There  is  no  difference  between 
the  minting  of  coins  and  the  minting  of  sections  of  Genesis. 
But  what  if  literature  is  not  within  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
foot-rule?  How  if  a  commentator  on  a  great  author  must 
be  endowed  with  some  appreciation  of  literary  beauty,  if  he 
is  to  perform  his  task  successfully? 

The  next  cause  that  falls  to  be  noticed  is  the  lack  of  judg- 
ment and  the  inability  to  weigh  evidence  that  characterize 
the  application  of  the  critical  tests.  For  the  sake  of  brevity, 
the  first  instance  will  be  taken  from  Genesis,  since  in  that 
book  it  is  easy  to  find  examples  limited  to  a  single  verse.  In 
a  genealogy  we  read :  "x^nd  Lamech  lived  an  hundred  eighty 
and  two  years,  and  begat  a  son"  (Gen.  v.  28).  The  whole 
of  this  down  to  "  begat  "  is  given  by  the  Oxford  Hexateuch 
to  "  P,"  but  "  a  son  "  is  assigned  to  "J  "  —  an  author  who, 
with  truly  prophetic  foresight,  took  the  unusual  step  of  com- 
posing the  end  of  the  sentence  some  centuries  before  "  P  " 
wrote  the  beginning.  The  reason  given  throws  much  light 
on  the  analysis.  The  preceding  items  in  this  genealogy  all 
conform  to  the  type  "And  A  lived  x  years,  and  begat  B." 
Accordingly  we  read  in  the  note :  "  The  uniformity  of  P's 
style  leads  us  to  expect  here  the  name  of  Noah.  The  com- 
piler, however,  wishing  apparently  to  utilize  J's  explanation 
of  it,  has  inserted  it  at  this  point,  having  no  doubt  found  it 
in  the  list  which  traced  Noah's  descent  through  Seth  iv  25  f. 


Dcufcronomy  and  the  Argument  from  Style  209 

That  pedigree  has  apparently  been  rejected  by  the  editor  in 
favour  of  the  more  highly  systematized  scheme  of  P,"  etc. 
(vol.  ii.  p.  8).  In  other  words,  "P"  could  not  have  written 
"  a  son  "  in  verse  28,  because  he  has  not  done  so  in  other 
verses,  and  we  can  feel  the  genius  of  fungible  things  — 
things  quae  pondere,  numero,  mensurave  constant  —  hover- 
ing over  us.  It  would  be  interesting  to  know  what  course 
was  open  to  "  P  "  if  he  too  desired  to  give  an  explanation 
of  Noah's  name.  Are  the  premises  in  any  way  commensurate 
to  the  conclusion?  Would  it  not  be  easier  to  suppose  that 
"  P  "  could  vary  his  language  when  occasion  demanded  than 
to  postulate  this  extraordinary  machinery  of  lists  and  com- 
pilers ? 

Another  curious  instance  may  be  taken  from  Dr.  Driver's 
statement  that  Deuteronomy  xi.  4  follows  Exodus  xiv.  27  JE 
(pp.  XV,  xvi).  lie  is  speaking  of  a  number  of  incidents  of 
which  the  passage  of  the  Red  Sea  is  one,  and  he  writes  "  in 
the  case  of  some  which  are  narrated  in  P  as  well,  the  terms 
of  the  allusion  in  Dt.  are  such  as  to  show  that  the  Writer  fol- 
lowed JE,  and  not  P."  Here  are  the  two  passages  in  par- 
allel columns : — 


DEUTEBONOMT    XI.    4. 


EXODUS    XIV. 

27    [P]    And    Moses  stretched  .    ^ 

forth    his    hand    over    the    sea,  ,    ^""^    ^^""^    ^^    ^'^    '^^t''    t^^ 

[JE]    and    the    sea    returned    to  ^""^^  °^  Egypt  unto  their  horses, 

its    strength   when   the   morning  ^""^  ^°   ^'^''^   ^^^"^^' =    ^«^   ^^ 

appeared;     and     the     Egyptians  ^^^^^^  ^^^^  water  of  the  Red  Sea 

fled    against    it;    and    the    Lokd  ^°   ?''''5^^    ^^'"^    ^^   ^^^^   P"^" 


overthrew  the  Egyptians  in  the 


sued    after    you,    and    how    the 


midst  of   the   sea;   28    [P]    and      ^^^^  f^^  destroyed  them   unto 

the  waters  returned,  and  covered  ^' 

the  chariots,  and  the  horsemen, 

even    all    the    host    of    Pharaoh 

that    went    in    after    them    into 

the  sea. 


310  Pentateuchal  Studies 

Is  there  any  evidence  which  would  justify  the  statement 
that  Deuteronomy  is  here  based  on  "  JE,"  to  the  exclusion  of 
"  P  "  ?  Or,  indeed,  is  there  here  any  evidence  which  would 
justify  any  inference  at  all?^ 

( 

Two  other  sources  of  error  remain  to  be  dealt  with;  but, 
as  they  are  more  appropriate  to  the  argument  from  rhythm, 
I  proceed  at  once  to  dispose  of  the  list  of  words.  For  this 
purpose  it  is  necessary  to  look  at  Deuteronomy  itself,  and  see 
what  it  professes  to  be. 

The  most  superficial  reader  of  the  book  must  be  aware  that 
it  consists  mainly  of  three  great  speeches.  He  will  not,  there- 
fore, be  greatly  surprised  to  find  that  the  language  is  colored 
by  this  fact,  and  that  appropriate  phrases  and  rhythm  are 
used,  or  that  some  of  the  terms  employed  appear  to  be  pop- 
ular rather  than  technical. 

At  the  conclusion  of  the  central  and  longest  speech  we  are 
told  that  "  these  are  the  words  of  the  covenant  which  the 
Lord  commanded  Moses  to  make  with  the  children  of  Israel  " 
(Deut.  xxviii.  69  (xxix.  1)).  It  requires  no  great  grasp  to 
enable  us  to  understand  that  language  appropriate  to  a  cove- 
nant is  likely  to  be  used. 

The  covenant  embodied  a  code  of  laws.  It  is  natural  that 
we  should  find  in  it  expressions  that  were  proper  for  a  law- 
giver to  use.     Nay,  more,  the  task  of  the  lawgiver  was  con- 

'  Straugely  enough,  Dr.  Driver  has  a  footnote  on  the  next  page 
(xvii)  in  which  he  says:  "In  xi.  4,  5  host  6>n).  horses  and  char- 
iots, and  pursued  after  them,  are  points  of  contact  with  P's  narra- 
tive of  the  passage  of  the  Red  Sea  in  Ex.  xiv."  He  then  collects 
some  other  "  points  of  contact,"  and  adds :  "  it  may  be  questioned 
whether  these  expressions  are  not  too  isolated,  and  too  little  dis- 
tinctive, to  establish  dependence  upon  P."  But,  what  expressions 
establish  the  dependence  of  Deut.  xi.  4  on  JE?  Where  is  the  evi- 
dence that  suppoi-ts  his  view? 


Deuteronomy  and  the  Argument  from  Style  211 

ditioned  by  the  circumstances  of  the  time.  The  people  were 
just  entering  a  land  in  which  idolatrous  high  places  abounded, 
and  there  was  grave  danger  that  at  these  they  would  offer 
sacrifices  which  for  religious  and  national  reasons  ought  to 
be  brought  only  to  the  House  of  the  Lord.  We  may  therefore 
expect  to  find  emphasis  laid  on  the  law  of  the  religious  capital ; 
and  this,  again,  must  affect  the  language.  In  other  ways,  too, 
the  historical  situation  will  color  the  orator's  phrases.  What 
wonder  if  he  should  make  frequent  reference  in  glowing 
terms  to  the  approaching  entry  into  the  land? 

We  have  yet  another  piece  of  information  about  the  book 
which  must  be  taken  into  account.  The  book  contains  a  code 
of  law  addressed  to  the  people  in  the  form  of  a  speech.  But 
it  was  not  only  on  the  occasion  of  its  first  delivery  that  this 
speech  was  to  go  before  the  people.  On  the  contrary,  it  was 
to  be  read  to  them  once  in  every  seven  years.  Having  regard 
to  this,  and  also  to  the  object  of  Moses,  the  nature  of  the  peo- 
ple, and  the  circumstances  of  the  time,  we  cannot  wonder  if 
he  lays  stress  on  the  duty  of  being  faithful  to  God,  inculcating 
obedience  to  His  precepts  at  every  opportunity,  holding  out 
inducem.ents  to  those  who  obey  Him,  uttering  warnings  as  to 
the  result  of  infidelity,  and  putting  before  the  people  the  na- 
tional evils  of  impiety. 

These  few  and  simple  remarks  dispose  of  the  great  bulk  of 
Dr.  Driver's  numbered  paragraphs.  I  have  classified  the  par- 
ticulars in  the  appendix,  to  which  those  who  care  for  the 
details  may  turn.  Of  course  I  do  not  claim  that  all  the  items 
in  this  classification  will  commend  themselves  to  everybody. 
In  many  cases  two  or  more  reasons  have  combined  to  make 
the  use  of  a  particular  phrase  natural.  The  influences  that 
determine  a  great  stylist's  choice  of  language  are  both  numer- 
ous and  varied,  and  it  would  be  absurd  for  anybody  dogmat- 


212  Pentatcuchal  Studies 

ically  to  assign  reasons  for  the  phraseology  employed  1  y  a 
speaker  three  thousand  years  ago,  or  to  pretend  that  he  can 
hear  with  the  ears  of  an  Israelite  of  the  Mosaic  age.  Thus 
I  expect  that  there  will  be  many  divergences  of  opinion  both 
as  to  the  phrases  I  have  selected,  and  those  I  have  omitted, 
and  also  as  to  the  reasons  assigned.  But  I  think  that  when 
all  deductions  have  been  made,  it  will  appear  that  the  great 
bulk  of  Dr.  Driver's  selected  phrases  can  be  accounted  for  by 
a  few  simple  considerations.  Assuming  that  Moses  did  at 
the  end  of  his  career  make  speeches,  one  of  which  embodied 
inter  alia  a  number  of  laws  in  the  form  of  the  terms  of  a  cove- 
nant, that  the  subject-matter  of  those  laws  was  similar  to  the 
contents  of  the  Deuteronomic  code,  and  that  the  historical 
circumstances  were  such  as  the  Bible  represents  them  to  have 
been,  there  is  nothing  in  these  lists  to  warrant  any  deductions 
as  to  authorship.  If  any  critic  doubt  this,  let  me  suggest  to 
him  a  very  simple  test.  Let  him  rewrite  some  other  portion 
of  the  Pentateuch,  say  the  first  chapter  of  Genesis,  as  he 
thinks  the  Deuteronomist  would  or  should  have  written  it, 
with  the  "  Hear,  O  Israels,"  and  the  "  good  lands,"  the  "  stat- 
utes and  judgments "  and  the  exhortations  not  to  forget, 
which  are  gravely  put  forward  in  evidence.  Or,  conversely, 
let  him  rewrite  some  portion  of  Deuteronomy  as  he  thinks  P 
or  JE  would  have  written  it.  Far  be  it  from  me  to  affirm  of 
any  higher  critic  that  in  this  way  he  would  convince  himself: 
but  if  he  would  only  publish  his  results,  he  would  speedily 
find  that  ridicule  still  has  power  to  kill. 

But  it  is  on  yet  other  considerations  that  I  rely  finally  to 
clinch  the  matter,  and  these  may  best  be  advanced  in  connec- 
tion with  Dr.  Driver's  argument  from  rhythm : — 

"  Of  course   a   tabulated   list   of   idioms   cannot  adequately 


Deuteronomy  and  the  Argument  from  Style  213 

characterize  the  style  of  an  author ;  there  is  an  effect  produced 
by  the  manner  in  which  phrases  are  combined,  and  by  the 
structure  and  rhythm  of  sentences,  which  defies  tabulation,  or 
even  description,  and  which  can  only  be  properly  appreciated 
by  repeated  perusal  of  the  work  in  question.  Those  who  have 
by  this  course  familiarized  themselves  with  the  style  of  the 
Deuteronomic  discourses,  will  be  conscious  how  greatly  it 
differs  from  that  of  any  other  part  of  the  Pent.  —  even  the 
parenetic  sections  of  JE,  which  show  a  tendency  to  approach 
it,  not  exhibiting  the  complete  Deuteronomic  rhythm  or  ex- 
pression "  (p.  Ixxxv). 

And  here  at  last  we  are  on  bed-rock.  In  this  instance  Dr. 
Driver  is  right  in  his  facts.  Is  he  right  in  the  interpretation 
he  puts  upon  them  or  even  in  the  method  of  his  study?  It  is 
to  this  that  the  last  two  charges  in  my  indictment  of  the  crit- 
ical argument  from  language  —  other  than  the  unique  dictum 
of  Dr.  Briggs  —  are  directed. 

The  ideal  commentary  on  Deuteronomy  would  devote  a  sec- 
tion of  the  introduction  to  considering  the  place  of  Moses 
among  the  great  orators  of  the  world  and  to  estimating  his 
oratory  as  literature.  Corresponding  to  this  there  would  be 
notes  dealing  with  details  of  style  from  the  standpoint  of  the 
orator's  art  and  in  the  light  of  the  comparative  material.  But 
the  ideal  is  not  yet  realized,  and  probably  no  biblical  student 
has  any  conception  of  what  we  miss.  After  all,  the  speeches 
of  Demosthenes  and  Cicero  and  Burke  are  also  characterized 
by  a  very  marked  rhythm.  When  I  look  at  attempts  such  as 
those  of  Sievers  to  scan  certain  portions  of  the  Bible  (e.g. 
Jer.  i.)  that  would  be  regarded  as  prose  in  any  other  lan- 
guage, I  cannot  help  feeling  that  a  knowledge  of  the  existence 
of  prose  rhythm  would  probably  revolutionize  the  attempts  of 


214  Pcntateuchal  Studies 

modern  writers  to  discover  meters  in  the  Bible. ^  In  the  case 
of  some  authors  a  good  deal  of  work  has  been  done  of  recent 
years ;  and,  while  I  must  not  be  taken  as  suggesting  that 
everything  that  is  true  of  other  prose  rhythms  may  be  ap- 
plied to  Hebrew  speeches,  1  cannot  but  see  how  a  knowledge 
of  other  fields  of  literature  would  modify  the  conclusions  of 
biblical  students.  We  should  no  longer  be  presented  with  the 
familiar  lists  of  words,  nor  should  we  be  invited  to  believe 
that  asyndeta  add  a  measured  dignity  to  style  ^ ;  but,  on  the 
other  hand,  we  should  have  our  attention  drawn  to  number- 
less literary  beauties  to  which  commentators  have  hitherto 
been  blind,  and  we  should  rise  from  a  study  of  the  Book  with 
a  truer  knowledge  of  its  place  among  the  literatures  of  the 
world  and  a  juster  appreciation  of  its  manifold  greatness. 

And  that  leads  me  to  my  last  point.  The  critical  case  rests 
on  the  assumption  that  differences  of  style  prove  differences 
of  authorship.  What  has  the  comparative  method  to  teach  us 
as  to  this  premise?  Docs  it  confirm  its  soundness?  The  an- 
swer —  which  sweeps  away  the  foundations  of  the  critical 
argument  —  is  in  the  negative.  There  is  a  passage  in  Nor- 
den's  "  Kunstprosa,"  —  not  to  be  translated  for  fear  of  losing 
the  flavor  of  the  original,  —  in  which  the  author  asks  what 

^  I  may  be  allowed  to  quote  a  sentence  from  the  preface  to  the 
second  edition  of  Blass's  Attische  Beredsamkeit :  "  Man  muss 
nicht  mit  dem  maltre  de  Phllosophie  bei  Moliere  hartnaekig  sagen: 
tout  ce  qui  n'est  point  prose  est  vers,  et  tout  oe  qui  n'est  point  vers, 
est  prose,  sondern  os  ist  den  Attikern  des  4.  Jahrhunderts  ein 
mittelding  zwischen  beiden  7Aizuge?tehen  wenn  man  den  Thatsa- 
chen  gerecht  wcrden  will"  (vol.  iii.  pt.  3).  Any  Hebraist  who 
will  carefully  examine  such  a  passage  as  Deut.  xxviii.  38-41  —  its 
rhythm,  its  antitheses,  the  order  of  the  words  —  will  see  for  him- 
self that  there  are  grounds  for  supposing  that  a  similar  remark 
would  apply  to  Mosaic  oratory. 

'  Driver,  Deuteronomy,  p.  Ixxxvii,  note. 


Deuteronomy  and  the  Argiimcnt  from  Style  215 

influence  the  individuality  of  the  writer  had  on  his  style  in 
the  ancient  world,  or,  in  other  words,  how  far  Buffon's  le 
style  est  I'homme  mcme  holds  good  for  that  period.  Norden 
concludes  that  style  was  an  acquired  art,  that  individuality 
was  subordinated  in  a  far  higher  degree  than  to-day,  and  that 
one  and  the  same  writer  could  write  in  different  styles  accord- 
ing to  the  task  in  hand.^  The  case  of  Moses  is  to  some  extent 
different  from  that  of  any  classical  writer.  He  could  have 
had  stylistic  models  only  within  very  narrow  limits.  A  few 
traditions,  a  few  songs  and  poems,  a  few  ''  dooms "  pro- 
nounced by  the  elders,  would  have  constituted  the  sum  total 
of  the  Hebrew  literature  that  he  found.  Nevertheless,  I  see 
no  difficulty  in  supposing  that,  when  occasion  demanded,  he 
was  capable  of  creating  a  style  suitable  for  the  matter  in 
hand.  After  all,  the  purposes  of  the  various  portions  of  the  Pen- 
tateuchal  legislation  are  palpably  diverse.  While  the  judgments 
are  written  in  a  form  suitable  for  memorizing  (which  may 
have  conformed  to  what  was  usual  in  the  traditional  "  dooms  " 
pronounced  by  the  courts  of  elders),  it  is  obvious  that  no 
speech  could  have  been  composed  in  the  same  style.     Here, 

^  Bevor  ich  zum  einzelnen  iibergebe,  habe  ich  noch.  kurz  eine 
Vorfrage  zu  beriihren :  welcben  Einfluss  hatte  im  Altertum  die 
Individualitat  des  Schriftstellers  auf  seinen  Stil  oder,  mit  andern 
Worten,  wie  weit  gilt  auch  fiir  jene  Zeit  Buffons  Ausspruch  le  style 
est  I'homme  m€me?  Zwar  hatte  auch  das  Altertum  ein  Sprlchwort: 
olos  6  Tpbvos,  roLovTos  Kal  6  \6yoi,  aber  wir  diirfen  nicht  verkennen 
dass  der  Satz  in  der  Praxis  nicht  so  grosse  Bedeutung  hatte  wie 
bei  uns.  Der  Stil  war  damals  eine  erlernte  Kunst,  deren  Regeln 
im  allgemeinen  keiner  seiner  Individualitat  zuliebe  ubertreten 
durfte,  wie  ja  iiberhaupt  das  Altertum  in  viel  hoherem  Masse  als 
die  moderne  Zeit  vom  Individuum  die  Uuterordnung  seiner  Eigen- 
art  unter  die  Autoritat  der  von  hervorragenden  Kunstrichtern 
sanktionierten  Tradition,  die  Zuriiekdrangung  des  Genialischen, 
verlangt  hat.  Daraus  ergiebt  sich  zweierlei.  Erstens:  die  Indi- 
viduen  treten  zuriick  hinter  allgemeinen  Richtungen  der  Zeit, 
deren  Reprasentanten  sie  sind.     Zweitens :  ein  und  derselbe  Schrift- 


216  Pcntatcuchal  Studies 

then,  necessity  must  have  been  the  mother  of  invention.  And 
in  dealing'  with  the  third  style  —  that  of  the  great  body  of 
"  priestly  "  legislation  —  it  must  be  remembered  that  the  pur- 
pose was  again  different.  Here  we  are  not  dealing  either  with 
a  speech  or  with  dooms  to  be  committed  to  memory,  but  with 
complicated  and  technical  rules  to  be  transmitted  by  a  spe- 
cially trained  class  who  would  teach  the  people  (Deut.  xxiv. 
8;  Lev.  xiv.  54—57).  It  is  possible  to  point  to  modern  in- 
stances of  similar  versatility.  Let  the  Indian  Penal  Code 
which  was  drafted  by  Macaulay  be  contrasted  with  the 
speeches  and  ballads  of  the  same  writer,  and  similar  diver- 
gences of  vocabulary  and  rhythm  will  at  once  become  appar- 
ent. If  it  be  urged  that  Macaulay  came  after  a  period  of  long 
literary  development,  I  answer:  (1)  that  it  is  impossible  to 
lay  down  narrow  rules  which  no  genius  can  transcend,  and 
(2)  that  no  man,  however  gifted,  could  have  written  "  dooms  " 
and  speeches  in  the  same  vocabulary  and  rhythm  and  made  a 
success  of  both.  A  man  of  genius  who  found  himself  con- 
fronted with  such  very  different  tasks  could  not  avoid  creat- 
ing the  means  of  executing  them.    In  a  word,  I  conceive  that 

steller  konnte  nebeneinander  in  ganz  verscliieclenen  Stilarten  schrei- 
ben,  indem  er  bald  diese,  bald  jene  lUa  verwendete,  je  nacbdem  sle 
ihm  fiir  das  vorllegende  Werk  zweckentsprechend  schien.  Wir 
Moderne  haben  durch  Verkennen  dieser  Thatsache  vielfacli  geirrt, 
aber  die  Zeiten  sind  vorbei,  wo  man  auf  dies  Argument  bin  dem 
Platon  den  Menexenos,  dem  Xenopbon  den  Agesilaos,  dem  Tacitus 
den  Dialogus,  dem  Appuleius  die  Scbrift  De  Muudo  uud  so  vielen 
Autoren  so  vieles  aberkannte,  oder  wo  man  sicb  dariiber  wunderte, 
dass  der  Aristoteles  der  pragmatiscben  Scbriften  in  seinen  Dialogen 
so  damonisch  zu  scbreiben  verstaud.  Selbst  die  so  beliebten 
Schliisse  von  der  Stilverscbiedenbeit  zweier  Werke  eines  und  des- 
selben  Autors  auf  eine  verschiedene  Abfassungszeit,  sind  selten 
zwingend  und  oft  durcb  Tbatsachen  anderer  Art  zu  widerlegen. 
Der  Stil  war  im  Altertum  nicbt  der  Mensch  selbst,  sondern  ein 
Gewand,  das  er  nacb  Belieben  wecbseln  konnte  (E.  Norden,  Die 
Antike  Kunstprosa    (1S98),  vol.   i.  pp.   11-12). 


Deuteronomy  and  the  Argument  from  Style  217 

in  each  case  the  style  was  merely  a  tool  forged  by  Moses  for 
the  accomplishment  of  his  purpose. 

We  must  now  come  back  to  Dr.  Briggs,  who  claims  that 
the  language  used  did  not  exist  until  centuries  after  the  death 
of  Moses.  After  what  has  been  said  of  the  inaccuracy  of  the 
critical  work,  it  is  not  necessary  to  take  this  claim  too  seri- 
ously.^ If  and  when  Dr.  Briggs  chooses  to  specify  the  facts 
on  which  he  relies,  there  will  be  time  enough  to  answer  his 
argument;  but  a  mere  vague  reference  to  his  Lexicon  is  no 
sufficient  clue  to  the  evidence.  Nevertheless,  it  is  not  so  diffi- 
cult to  answer  Dr.  Briggs  as  might  appear,  because  it  happens 
that  I  have  myself  had  to  examine  the  uses  of  a  few  of  the 
words  to  which  Dr.  Briggs  has  devoted  special  attention.  On 
the  occasions  on  which  I  use  his  Lexicon  (which  is  generally 
when  J  want  information  about  some  technical  term),  I  am 
usually  amazed  at  the  backward  state  of  lexicographical 
studies.  The  very  first  things  that  strike  me  about  a  word 
are  usually  points  that  have  never  been  noticed  at  all  by  our 
lexicographers.  In  fact  here,  as  elsewhere,  I  am  separated 
from  the  higher  critics  by  differences  of  training,  of  temper- 

^  Here  is  a  sample  from  Dr.  Briggs  himself : — 

"A  careful  study  of  the  term  min,  as  applied  to  law,  makes  it 
evident  that  it  was  the  earlier  usage  of  all  the  documents  of  the 
Hexateuch  except  P  to  regard  niiJ^  as  the  Law  in  general,  as  em- 
bracing a  complex  of  words,  statutes,  judgments,  commands,  and 
that  the  use  of  nnin,  nilin  for  particular  laws  is  post-Deuteronomic. 
Such  laws  are  to  be  found  only  in  P  (see  New  Heireic  Lexicon,  p. 
435)."  (Higher  Criticism  of  the  Hexateuch  (new  ed.  1897),  p.  255.) 
But  on  p.  436  of  the  Lexicon  Dr.  Briggs  writes  of  this  word: 
"law  (prop,  direction)  :  viz:  of  special  laws,  singular  of  Feast  of 
Massoth  Ex.  xiii.  9  (J),  sabbath  xvi.  4  (J)  ;  of  direction  given  by 
priests  in  particular  case  Deut.  xvii.  11."  It  might  be  added  that 
the  language  of  Deut.  xxiv.  8  (see  Driver,  ad  loc.)  would  in  itself 
be  sufficient  to  render  Dr.  Brlggs's  theory  extremely  improbable. 


218  Pcntatcuchal  Studies 

anient,  and  of  scholarly  ideals.  I  propose  to  take  a  single 
example  of  Dr.  Briggs's  work;  and,  in  discussing  it,  I  shall 
endeavor,  so  far  as  may  be,  to  emphasize  the  distinctions 
between  the  historico-legal  methods  and  those  employed  by 
Dr.  Briggs.  To  this  end  1  shall  marshal  a  number  of  facts  and 
arguments  that  are  quite  out  of  proportion  to  the  intrinsic 
importance  of  the  statements  investigated. 

"  The  earliest  type  of  Hebrew  law  is  the  i-^  Word,  not  so 
much  a  particular  word  as  a  word -group  —  a  saying,  dis- 
course, utterance,  sentence."  ^ 

This  statement  occurs  in  an  appendix  on  Types  of  Hebrew 
Law  added  to  '"  The  Higher  Criticism  of  the  Hexateuch  "  in 
the  1897  edition,  as  the  result  of  the  work  done  for  the  new 
Lexicon.  We  are  then  informed  that  the  "'  word  "  is  spoken 
by  God  either  directly,  as  in  the  Decalogue,  or  "  immediately 
[Dr.  Bnggs  probably  means  mediately.  H.  M.  W.]  through 
Moses  and  the  prophets  who  succeeded  him.  Accordingly  ">3T 
becomes  the  term  for  the  message  of  the  prophets,  and  later 
for  the  sentences  of  the  Hebrew  wise  men."  "  These  Words 
are  in  the  second  person  singular  of  the  verb,  and  with  the 
negative,  and  are  brief  terse  sentences  without  reasons,  with- 
out specifications,  and  without  penalty.  All  such  additions  to 
the  Words  are  redactional." 

I  proceed  to  outline  the  methods  of  attacking  these  state- 
ments. 

1.  We  may  turn  to  the  history  and  see  what  it  has  to  teach 
us.  The  book  of  Genesis,  for  example,  is  full  of  law.  To  take 
a  few  general  instances:  we  find  traces  of  a  law  that  in  cer- 
tain cases  a  slave  might  inherit  from  his  master  to  the  ex- 

'  Higher  Criticism  of  tlie  Hexateuch    (new  ed.   ISOT),  p.   242. 


Deuteronomy  and  the  Argument  from  Style  219 

elusion  of  that  master's  collateral  relations ;  ^  we  have  law 
regulating  conveyances  of  land  (Gen.  xxiii.),  law  of  theft 
(Gen.  xxxi.  32;  xliv.),-  law  of  murder,  birthright,  marriage, 
slavery,  etc.  In  some  cases  this  was  customary  law  that  may 
not  have  been  formulated.  In  others  —  e.g.  murder  and 
theft  —  it  was  impossible  to  escape  formulating  it.  If  it  be 
asked  what  evidence  Dr.  Briggs  has  that  such  laws  were 
known  as  "  words  "  and  conformed  to  some  particular  "  type  " 
or  were  sentences  spoken  by  God,  the  inevitable  answer  is  not 
merely  that  he  has  no  such  evidence,  but  that  it  has  never 
even  occurred  to  him  to  consider  the  matter.  Yet  if  it  were 
true  that  the  earliest  type  of  Hebrew  law  was  the  "  Word," 
it  would  be  possible  to  show  that  the  earliest  laws  were 
"  Words." 

2.  Even  if  we  had  no  history  to  help  us,  we  should  know, 
from  the  universal  experience  of  mankind  and  the  nature  of 
society,  that  the  Hebrews  had  law  as  soon  as  a  society  existed. 
"  It  is  an  old  saying,  tihi  societas  ibi  jus  est:  where  there  is  a 
society  there  is  law.  And  perhaps  no  better  account  can  be 
given  of  what  is  commonly  understood  by  law  than  that  it  is 
a  body  of  rules  expressing  the  claims  which,  in  a  given  so- 
ciety, are  held  to  be  enforceable  and  are  more  or  less  regularly 
observed.  When  a  claim  is  urged  but  is  not  held  to  be  en- 
forceable, it  is  commonly  called  a  moral  claim  as  distinguished 
from  a  legal  one.  On  the  other  hand,  where  no  claims  have 
become  legal  ones,  there  cannot  be  a  society  in  any  true 
sense.  ...  So  the  maxim  ubi  societas  ibi  jus  est  correctly  puts 
before  us  society  and  law  as  mutually  dependent.    They  must 

^  Gen.  XV.  2-4 ;  cf.  Prov.  xvii.  2 ;  xxx.  23 ;  and.  for  a  parallel, 
among  the  Waniamwesi  see  Kohler  in  Zeitschrift  fiir  ver.Grleich- 
ende  Reehtswissenschaft,  vol.  xv.  p.  43. 

^  Cf.  Post,  Gruudriss  der  ethnologischen  Jurisprudenz,  vol.  li.  pp. 
427-428,  442. 


320  Pcntateuchal  Studies 

have  been  inseparable  as  facts  from  the  earHest  time  at  which 
there  was  any  intercourse  between  men,  probably  before  there 
was  any  clear  consciousness  of  the  notions  corresponding  to 
the  facts,  and  they  are  still  inseparable  in  all  departments  of 
intercourse  between  men.  Without  society  no  law,  without 
law  no  society."  ^  In  other  words,  law  is  the  necessary  ce- 
ment of  every  social  fabric.  Here,  again,  Dr.  Briggs  has 
never  stopped  to  consider  whether  any  society  could  exist  for 
a  single  week  on  his  "  Words,"  or  what  the  state  of  affairs 
was  before  these  "  Words  "  were  given  or  forged.  Yet  the 
whole  body  of  the  Pentateuchal  legislation  presupposes  the 
existence  of  a  body  of  well-settled  law  dealing  with  the 
everyday  occurrences  of  life.  For  example,  there  is  no  rule 
providing  for  the  descent  of  chattels  or  live  stock  on  the  death 
of  the  owner.  Yet  we  cannot  infer  that  no  owner  of  movable 
property  ever  died.  The  ordinary  rules  must  have  been  set- 
tled long  before  the  days  of  Moses,  and  were  left  practically 
untouched  by  the  Mosaic  legislation. - 

3.  The  "  words  "  to  which  Dr.  Briggs  refers  are  not  laws 
at  all.  Take  "  thou  shalt  not  steal."  The  question  at  once 
arises  what  penalty  is  to  be  inflicted  on  a  thief.  In  Genesis 
and  Exodus  we  find  the  following  in  different  cases :  death, 
slavery,  manifold  restitution.  How  could  any  court  adminis- 
ter Dr.  Briggs's  "  Words  "  unless  there  were  but  one  penalty, 
which   was  inflicted  in  all  cases  of  whatever  nature?     Not 

^Westlake,  Chapters  on  the  Triuciples  of  International  Law, 
pp.  2-3. 

=  Deut.  xxi.  15  ff.  deals  with  some  disposition  in  the  owner's 
lifetime  —  thus  not  covering  cases  of  strict  intestacy  —  and  presup- 
poses law  permitting  such  dispositions.  The  portion  given  by  Ja- 
cob to  Joseph,  and  not  to  Reuben,  is  an  interesting  case  that  would 
fall  within  the  letter  —  though  perhaps  not  the  spirit  —  of  this 
law.  That  and  other  passages  in  Genesis  prove  a  power  of  dis- 
position analogous  to  a  testamentary  power. 


Deuteronomy  and  the  Argument  from  Style  221 

only  so ;  yet  another  argument  is  available.  Some  of  his 
"  words  "  deal  with  matters  that,  from  the  nature  of  the  case, 
cannot  possibly  fall  within  the  jurisdiction  of  any  human  tri- 
bunal. "  Thou  shalt  not  covet  "  is  an  instance.  Covetousness 
is  a  purely  mental  affection ;  and  it  must  be  obvious  that  no 
man  can  be  conscious  of  the  mental  condition  of  another,  un- 
less and  until  that  other  gives  expression  to  it  by  some  overt 
act.  ''  Thou  shalt  not  covet "  may  be  enforced  by  God  or  by  a 
man's  own  conscience,  but  by  no  other  power  on  earth. 

4.  There  is  no  sufficient  reason  for  saying  that  "im  meant 
any  type  of  Hebrew  law  at  all,  or  indeed  could  be  used  as 
signifying  "  law,"  except  in  so  far  as  all  laws  consist  of  words. 
When  I  investigated  its  usage,  I  was  unable  to  satisfy  myself 
that  this  was  the  case.  On  the  other  hand,  I  found  that,  in 
some  of  the  passages  on  which  Dr.  Briggs  would  probably 
rely,  it  had  a  technical  covenant  meaning,  expressing  terms 
on  which  God  and  Israel  entered  into  a  covenant.^  The  fact 
that  these  terms  were  also  Divine  commands  has  helped  to 
mislead  our  lexicographer. 

5.  There  is  no  evidence  whatever  for  most  of  the  state- 
ments made  by  Dr.  Briggs,  which  are,  nevertheless,  put  for- 
ward with  the  utmost  confidence.  Dr.  Orr  has  recently  dwelt 
on  the  extraordinary  dogmatism  of  the  critics.^  Here  it  is 
only  necessary  to  point  to  the  entire  absence  of  evidence  for 
the  following  assertions,  all  of  which  are  made  or  implied  in 
the  sentences  quoted :  ( 1 )  All  Hebrew  "  Laws  "  once  con- 
formed to  a  single  ''type."  (2)  The  name  of  that  type  was 
"Word."  (3)  The  "Word"  was  in  the  second  person  sing- 
ular, etc.  (4)  All  additions  that  do  not  conform  to  this  dic- 
tum    are    redactional.      Co)    All   early    Hebrew    laws     were 

1  Studies  in  Biblical  Law,  p.  64. 

=  The  Problem   of  the  Old  Testament,   pp.   507-508. 


232  Pentateiichal  Studies 

spoken  by  God  directly  or  immediately  (mediately?).  (G), 
This  is  the  origin  of  the  term  "  Word  "  as  applied  to  the  mes- 
sage of  the  prophets  or  the  sentences  of  Hebrew  wise  men. 
It  would  be  easy  to  deal  with  all  the  other  relevant  state- 
ments in  Dr.  Briggs's  appendix  on  Types  of  Hebrew  Law  in 
similar  fashion.  But  it  is  obviously  unnecessary.  Sufficient 
light  has  been  thrown  on  his  methods  to  make  clear  what 
value  should  be  attached  to  such  unsupported  statements  as 
to  the  evidence  of  language. 

APPENDIX. 

The  following  table  includes  the  bulk  of  the  words  and  phrases 
relied  on  by  Dr.  Driver,  and  shows  how  a  few  simple  and  obvious 
considerations  account  for  them : 

I.  {a)  Words  and  phrases  natural  to  speeches,  as  opposed  to 
narrative:  Nos.  15,  "  Lokd,  thy  (our,  your)  God"  (the  emphasis  on 
the  relationship  expressed  being  most  natural  in  a  speech)  ;  16,  "The 
Lord,  the  God  of  thy  (our,  your,  their)  fathers";  50,  "The  priests, 
the  Levites "  (to  bulk  of  the  populace);  59,  "Which  thine  eyes 
have  seen";  GO,  "Thy  (your)  eyes  are  those  that  have  seen";  66, 
"  Hear,  O  Israel." 

(6)  Words  and  phrases  that  Avere  probably  chosen  wholly  or  in 
part  on  account  of  the  oratorical  rhythm  or  euphony.  (It  is  im- 
possible for  any  modern  writer  to  feel  sure  of  this,  but  on  p.  Ixxxvii 
Dr.  Driver  himself  recognizes  this  as  the  ground  for  the  selection 
of  alternative  forms  of  words)  :  Nos.  19,  HD'^K  (a  form  of  the  He- 
brew word  for  "how?");  27,  "The  stranger,  the  fatherless,  and 
the  widow"  (the  use  of  these  words  was  of  course  necessitated  by 
the  sense,  but  probably  the  phrase  commended  itself  by  Its  rhythm)  ; 
30,  "Thy  corn,  and  thy  new  wine,  and  thine  oil"  (a  similar  re- 
mark applies);  41,  "continually"  (Hebrew,  "all  the  days");  55, 
"  the  work  of  the  hands  " ;  58,  STj?  "  midst " ;  64,  "  that  to  which 
thou  puttest  thine  (ye  put  your)  hand";  60,t."Xn  "linro,  "out  of  the 
midst  of  the  fire"   (compare  No.  58). 

II.  Covenant  words  and  phrases :  Nos.  7a.  "  a  people  of  special 
possession";  8,  "covenant";  13,  "to  swear"  (references  to  the 
oaths  contained  in  former  covenants)  ;  and  some  of  the  words  or 
phrases  in  No.  ?,7,  "  statutes  and  judgments  and  testimonies,"  etc. 
(Studies  in  r.iblical   Law,   pp.  52,  59-64.) 


Dciitcyonomy  and  the  Argument  from  Style  223 

III.  (a)  Law-book  words  and  phrases: — the  other  words  and 
phrases  in  No.  37,  e.g.  "  judgment " ;  %  "  Whirti  I  am  command- 
ing thee  this  day";  57,  "therefore  I  command  thee"  (this  might 
almost  equally  well  be  put  under  (e))  ;  44,  "thou  (he)  canst  not" 
(iziit  shall  not  be  lawful  for  thee  to). 

(6)  Words  and  phrases  connected  with  laws  as  to  the  religious 
capital:  Nos.  20,  "To  eat  before  the  Lord"  (i.e.  at  the  temple); 
63,  "to  make  His  Name  dwell  there"    (cf.  No.  23). 

(c)  Laws  for  national  purity:  No.  24,  "so  thou  shalt  extermi- 
nate the  evil  from  thy  midst." 

id)  The  duty  of  intense  fidelity  to  God:  Nos.  1  (a)  "to  love" 
God;  2,  "other  gods"  (not  to  go  after,  etc.);  11,  "take  heed  to 
thyself  (yourselves),  lest";  14,  "to  hearken  to  His  voice";  28, 
"to  cleave  to"  God  (Dent,  always  in  a  group  with  words  like 
"to  hearken  to  His  voice")  ;  31,  "to  walk  in  the  Lord's  ways"; 
45,  the  duty  of  fearing  God  inculcated;  48,  "to  do  that  which 
is  right  in  the  eyes  of  the  Lord  " ;  49,  "  to  do  that  which  is  evil 
in  the  eyes  of  the  Lord";  51,  "with  all  thy  (your)  heart  and  with 
all  thy  (your)  soul";  53,  "to  turn  neither  to  the  right  hand  nor 
to  the  left,"  used  metaphorically ;  62,  the  caution  "  not  to  forget " ; 
68a,  "  to  observe  to  do,"  68&,  "  to  observe  and  do." 

(e)  Exhortations  and  inducements  to  obedience:  Nos.  3,  "to  be 
long,"  or  "to  prolong"  of  days  (the  Deut.  promise  upon  obedience)  ; 
25,  "  in  order  that  the  Lord  may  bless  thee " ;  36,  "  and  it  be  sin 
in  thee " ;  42,  "  that  it  may  be  well  for  thee " ;  67,  "And  .  .  .  shall 
hear  and  fear"    (of  the  deterrent  effects  of  punishment). 

(n  Historical  reminiscences  (often  containing  an  appeal  to  obe- 
dience) :  Nos.  5,  "house  of  bondage";  12,  "A  mighty  hand  and  a 
stretched  out  arm " ;  33,  "And  remember  that  thou  wast  a  bond- 
man in  the  land  of  Egypt." 

IV.  References  to  the  acquisition  of  Canaan :  Nos.  4,  "  which 
the  Lord  thy  (our,  etc.)  God  is  giving  thee  (us,  etc.),"  attac'hed 
mostly  to  "  the  land,"  i^ometimes  to  "  the  ground."  "  the  gates," 
"the  cities,"  etc.;  6,  "thy  (your)  gates";  10,  "to  cause  others 
to  possess,  i.e.  to  dispossess  (the  Lord,  the  Canaanites  before  Is- 
rael)"; 22,  "the  land  whither  thou  goest  in  to  possess  it,"  "the 
land  whither  thou  passest  (ye  pass)  over  (Jordan)  to  possess  it"; 
38,  "the  good  land"  of  Canaan;  46,  "to  possess"  (as  in  Nos.  4 
and  22). 

V.  Miscellaneous :  There  are  also  some  phrases  in  this  list  that 
do  not  fall  under  any  of  the  above  headings,  and  yet  are  obviously 
in  place  in  Deuteronomy;  such  as,  Nos.  1  (&),  God's  love  of  Israel 
and  23,   God's  choice  of  Israel    (both  topics  on  which  it  would  be 


224:  Pentateiichal  Studies 


natural  for  Moses  to  dilate  in  speeches  of  this  nature);  47,  "all 
Israel";  32,  "Who  shall  be  in  those  days"  (almost  inevitable  in 
a  book  designed  to  mold  the  future)  ;  34,  "thine  eye  shall  not  pity 
him"  (intended  to  work  on  public  opinion)  ;  35,  "be  (ye)  cour- 
ageous and  strong"  (Dr.  Driver  says:  "The  expression  may  seem 
to  be  an  ordinary  one ;  but  it  occurs  besides  only  in  1  Ch.  xxii 
13,  xxviii  20,  2  Ch.  xxxii  7 " ;  but  his  own  references  to  Deuter- 
onomy are  xxxi.  6,  7,  23  and  iii.  28  —  all  in  connection  with 
Joshua's  appointment.  What  could  be  more  natural  than  the  use 
of  such  a  phrase  by  Moses  in  such  a  connection,  and  only  in  that 
connection?  He  also  refers  to  five  passages  in  Joshua  which  he 
regards  as  Deuteronomic.  Of  these  no  fewer  than  four  deal  with 
Joshua);  39,  "Which  thou  (ye)  knowest  (or  knewest)  not";  29, 
"As  the  Lord  hath  spoken." 


XVIII 
THE  ALTAR  OF  JOSHUA  XXII 

[From  the  BiNlotheca  Sacra,  October,  1911.] 

One  or  two  reviewers  of  "  Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criti- 
cism "  have  raised  a  question  as  to  Joshua  xxii.  Nobody  has 
been  found  to  suggest  that  Wellhausen  and  his  followers  are 
capable  of  discriminating  between  a  house  and  a  mound,  but 
the  application  of  the  distinction  between  lay  altars  and  horned 
altars  to  this  chapter  has  been  the  cause  of  some  trouble,  and 
I  am  satisfied  that  I  have  failed  to  express  my  reasoning  with 
sufficient  clearness.  It  is  well,  therefore,  to  return  to  the  point ; 
and  in  order  to  deal  with  it  the  more  satisfactorily,  I  propose  to 
begin  by  quoting  the  ablest  presentation  of  the  difficulty  that 
I  have  seen.  It  is  from  the  pen  of  Professor  J.  Oscar  Boyd, 
and  will  be  found  on  page  489  of  the  Princeton  Theolog- 
ical Reviczv  for  July,  1910.    He  writes : — 

".  .  .  .  For  instance,  what  about  the  altar  of  Joshua  xxii.?  All 
that  Wiener  says  about  it  (p.  198),  is  that  it  was  because  this  was 
a  '  horned  altar '  that  it  awoke  the  resentment  of  the  cis-JordanIc 
tribes.  Yet  a  reading  of  that  chapter  seems  to  place  the  emphasis, 
not  on  what  sort  of  an  altar  it  was,  but  on  the  fact  that  any  altar 
at  all  was  erected  for  sacrificial  purposes  other  than  that  at  Shiloh. 
The  incensed  tribes  are  pacified  when  they  learn  that  the  altar  1b 
not  intended  for  sacrifice." 

Another  reviewer  went  further  and  suggested  that  I  was 
quite  arbitrary  in  declaring  that  this  altar  was  a  horned  altar. 
How  could  I  know? 

Accordingly  I  shall  deal  with  this  point  first.  In  verse  28 
we  read  the  words  "  Behold  the  pattern  of  the  altar,"  etc. 
Now  the  ordinary  lay  altar  could  have  no  fixed  pattern,  be- 
cause it  was  made  of  earth  or  unhewn  stones,  and  the  stones 
225 


226  Pentatcuchal  Studies 

could  not  be  made  to  conform  to  any  fixed  pattern  without 
being  wrought  (Ex.  xx.  24-26).  If  we  turn  from  the  law  to 
the  historical  instances  of  lay  altars,  we  find  this  truth  illus- 
trated. A  lay  altar  may  consist  of  a  single  large  stone  (as  in 
the  case  of  the  altar  used  by  Saul  after  the  battle  of  Mich- 
mash),  or  of  a  dozen  stones  (as  in  the  case  of  Elijah  on  Car- 
mel),  or  of  a  rock  (as  in  the  instance  of  Manoah's  altar),  or 
of  earth.  The  nature  of  the  materials  thus  makes  it  impossible 
that  any  particular  pattern  should  characterize  them,  just  as 
it  makes  it  impossible  that  these  lay  altars  could  have  horns. 
A  stone  altar  could  have  horns  only  if  the  stone  were  dressed, 
and  the  law  provides  that  "  thou  shalt  not  build  it  of  hewn 
stones;  for  if  thou  lift  up  thy  tool  upon  it,  thou  hast  pol- 
luted it."  Thus  no  doubt  is  possible  as  to  the  nature  of  the 
object  that  evoked  the  anger  of  the  cis-Jordanic  tribes ;  and 
there  is  nothing  arbitrary  about  my  statement,  though  it  would 
have  been  clearer  if  made  in  an  expanded  form. 

But  then  how  about  Professor  Boyd's  objection?  Is  he  not 
right  in  saying  that  the  "  reading  of  that  chapter  seems  to 
place  the  emphasis,  not  on  what  sort  of  an  altar  it  was,  but 
on  the  fact  that  any  altar  at  all  was  erected  for  sacrificial  pur- 
poses"? I  think  the  answer  to  that  question  is  "Yes  and 
no."  If  he  will  forgive  my  saying  so,  I  believe  that  our  dif- 
ficulty comes  merely  from  the  fact  that  we  have  to  read  this 
chapter  without  the  background  of  intimate  knowledge  of  the 
practice  and  circumstances  of  the  epoch  which  the  narrator 
naturally  postulates.  The  result  is  that  expressions  which  to 
contemporaries  could  have  had  but  one  meaning  appear  to  us 
most  naturally  to  designate  something  entirely  different,  and 
it  is  only  when  we  have  succeeded  in  recapturing  something 
of  the  contemporary  point  of  view  that  we  begin  to  see  what 
was  originally  intended. 


The  Altar  of  Joshua  xxii  227 

Let  me  digress  for  a  moment  to  offer  a  modern  illustration 
of  the  whole  Wellhausen  confusion  as  to  altars  and  sacrifice. 
A  Christian  of  our  time  may  without  the  slightest  difficulty 
or  inconsistency  engage  in  no  fewer  than  three  different  kinds 
of  prayer  within  the  course  of  a  few  hours.  He  may  attend  a 
public  service  in  his  church  or  chapel,  and  so  engage  in  public 
prayer.  He  may  offer  up  grace  at  a  meal  or  have  household 
prayers,  and  so  engage  in  domestic  prayer.  He  may  offer  up 
his  supplications  to  the  Deity  alone,  and  so  engage  in  private 
prayer.  It  would  of  course  be  easy  to  prolong  the  enumera- 
tion of  possible  varieties,  but  these  are  sufficient  for  my  pur- 
pose. No  Christian  to-day  who  is  accustomed  to  this  system 
would  in  reading  current  literature  have  the  slightest  difficulty 
in  understanding  references  to  any  or  all  of  these  three  kinds 
of  prayer  or  be  in  any  danger  of  confusing  them.  But  suppose 
that  the  professorate  of  some  other  non-Christian  planet  were 
confronted  with  a  Christian  literature  that  contained  numer- 
ous regulations  relating  to  public  prayer,  and  occasional  inci- 
dental references  to  domestic  and  private  prayer,  dire  confusion 
might  easily  ensue.  That  is  what  has  happened  in  the  case 
of  the  Wellhausen  discussion. 

Returning  now  to  apply  this  to  ancient  Israel,  we  must 
first  picture  to  ourselves  the  lay  altar  and  then  contrast  it  with 
the  horned  altar. '  In  an  article  that  I  am  contributing  to  a 
forthcoming  Bible  Dictionary  I  am  exhibiting  in  juxtaposition 
a  picture  oi  a  cairn  of  stones  (used  as  an  altar)  and  a  restora- 
tion of  the  altar  of  burnt-offering,  and  I  hope  that  these  illus- 
trations will  make  it  impossible  for  any  reader  of  that  work 
to  confuse  the  two.  Here  I  write  without  illustrations,  but 
I  feel  confident  that  my  readers  must  all  have  seen  large 
stones,  rocks,  and  mounds,  and  also  pictures  of  the  altar  of 
burnt-offering,  and  if  they  will  but  recall  these  things  to  their 


228  Pcntateuchal  Studies 

minds  they   need   have  no  great  difficulty   in   deciding  as  tc 
Joshua  xxii. 

Now,  first  of  all,  we  read  (ver.  10)  that  the  trans-Jordanic 
tribes  "  built  there  an  altar  by  Jordan,  a  great  altar  to  see  to." 
I  submit  that  to  a  contemporary  that  would  only  mean  an 
altar  of  the  horned  type.  Why?  Well,  first,  lay  altars  were 
at  that  time  mostly  used  for  the  nonce  only.  You  rolled  a 
stone  or  put  together  a  mound,  used  it  on  one  occasion,  and  as 
likely  as  not  abandoned  it  a  few  hours  after.  But  even  if  you 
erected  your  altar  for  more  or  less  permanent  use  it  was  for 
your  household  or  the  village  or  the  clan  that  you  erected  the 
altar.  Now  an  altar  that  was  solemnly  erected  by  two  and  a 
half  tribes  was  obviously  at  least  as  difi^erent  from  the  ordi- 
nary lay  altar  as  a  church  service  is  from  domestic  prayer. 
Assuming  (as  the  cis-Jordanic  Israelites  naturally  did)  that 
it  was  intended  for  sacrifice,  the  great  majority  of  the  trans- 
Jordanic  tribesmen  could  only  use  it  by  making  pilgrimages. 
But  as  I  have  pointed  out  the  pilgrimages  of  the  Pentateuch 
are  to  be  made  to  the  House  of  the  Lord.  No  contemporary 
could  possibly  have  supposed  that  the  distances  or  the  circum- 
stances of  the  age  would  have  permitted  the  majority  of  the 
trans-Jordanic  tribesmen  to  use  this  otherwise  than  as  a  pil- 
grimage center,  if  the  altar  was  sacrificial.  Secondly,  the 
building  of  an  ordinary'  lay  altar  could  not  have  been  described 
in  such  terms.  A  mere  stone  or  cairn  would  not  have  been 
"  a  great  altar  to  see  to,"  nor  would  its  erection  have  been 
described  solemnly  as  the  work  of  two  and  a  half  tribes. 
Thirdly,  if  this  had  been  an  ordinary  lay  altar  such  as  any 
Israelite  could  and  did  erect  at  any  moment,  contemporaries 
would  never  have  reported  it,  just  as  we  do  not  report  domes- 
tic prayer  in  our  newspapers,  but  lay  great  stress  on  the  open- 
ing of  a  new  cathedral. 


The  Altar  of  Joshua  xxii  229 

The  course  of  the  subsequent  discussion  by  the  delegation 
naturally  confirms  this.  The  concession  made  to  the  possible 
reasons  of  the  trans-Jordanic  tribes  for  building  what  was 
supposed  to  be  an  altar  of  pilgrimage  is  contained  in  verse  19 : 
"  Howbeit,  if  the  land  of  our  possession  be  unclean,"  etc. 
Write  out  this  reasoning  at  length  and  it  is  as  follows:  "  Our 
land  is  clean  because  God's  Dwelling  (the  Tabernacle  with  the 
great  altar  of  burnt-offering)  is  among  us.  But  you  live  in  a 
territory  that  is  geographically  divided  from  ours  by  the  Jor- 
dan, and  you  may  therefore  have  thought  with  some  reason 
that  your  land  is  unclean.  This  you  have  tried  tO'  remedy  by 
erecting  a  separate  sanctuary ;  but  such  a  remedy  is  rebellion. 
Your  right  course  is  not  to  infringe  the  principle  of  the  single 
pilgrimage  sanctuary,  but  to  move  into  our  territory.  And 
why  is  a  second  pilgrimage  sanctuary  so  objectionable?  Be- 
cause it  leads  so  easily  to  the  worship  of  false  gods.  Is  the 
iniquity  of  Peor  too  little  for  us?"  etc.  (ver.  17).  The  refer- 
ence is  to  Numbers  xxv.  2  f.,  "  for  they  called  the  people  unto 
the  sacrifices  of  their  gods ;  and  the  people  did  eat,  and  bowed 
down  to  their  gods.  And  Israel  joined  himself  unto  Baal- 
peor."  There  is  throughout  this  chapter  no  reference  to  or- 
dinary lay  altars.  The  objection  is  to  a  rival  horned  altar 
which  should  form  a  center  of  pilgrimage  to  the  trans-Jordanic 
tribes  and  ultimately  a  center  of  apostasy. 

Once  all  this  is  firmly  grasped,  the  other  expressions  of  the 
chapter  can  be  interpreted  quite  naturally  in  the  light  of  the 
knowledge  of  contemporary  circumstances  that  we  have  so 
acquired,  and  all  difficulty  disappears.  The  key  to  the  whole 
thing  is  the  visualizing  of  the  two  types  of  altars.  Once  that 
is  effected,  confusion  becomes  impossible  and  a  context  refer- 
ring to  one  type  will  never  be  understood  of  the  other. 


XIX 

THE  "PRIESTS"  OF  EXODUS  XIX 

[From  the  BiJ)Uotheca  Sacra,  April,  1910.] 

The  mention  of  priests  in  Exodus  xix.  22,  24,  has 
hitherto  constituted  a  very  difficult  problem,  but  material 
for  its  solution  has  recently  been  published.  The  larger 
Cambridge  Septuagint  records  a  Hexaplar  note  on  verse 
22  according  to  which  Aquila  read  olirpea^vrepoL  for  ollepevi^ 
i.e.  D^jprn,  "  the  elders,"  for  D'':n3n,  "  the  priests,"  —  a  differ- 
ence of  only  two  letters.^  That  this  represents  a  genuine  He- 
brew variant,  and  not  an  attempt  to  interpret  the  reading  of 
the  Massoretic  text,  is  obvious  both  from  Aquila's  known 
habits  and  also  from  the  fact  that  the  rabbinical  theory  as- 
signs a  pre-Levitical  priesthood  to  the  first-born  —  i.e.  to  per- 
sons whom  no  interpreter  could  call  "  elders."  No  note  has 
been  preserved  as  to  Aquila's  reading  in  verse  24,  but  we 
may  reasonably  conjecture  that  there  too  he  had  "  elders." 
That  this  reading  is  in  fact  correct  is  proved  by  the  part 
played  by  the  elders  as  the  heads  and  representatives  of  the  . 
people  earlier  in  the  chapter.  It  is  easy  to  see  that  if  the 
word  became  slightly  illegible  the  expressions  "  come  near  " 
and  "  sanctify  themselves  "  in  verse  22  might  easily  suggest 
priests  to  the  mind  of  a  scribe. 

^This    reading    lias    now    been    adopted    by    Troelstra    (De  Naam 
Gods,  p.  17). 


230 


XX 


PRIESTS  AND  LEVITES :   THE  FOURTH   CHAPTER 
OF  WELLHAUSEN'S  PROLEGOMENA 

[From  the  Bibliotheca  Sacra  for  July,  1910.] 

"  For  the  position  of  the  Levites  is  the  Achilles  heel  of  the 
Priestly  Code." — Wellhausen. 

For  the  Wellhausen  reconstruction  of  the  history  of  Israel 
our  present  subject  is  second  in  importance  only  to  "  Sanctu- 
aries." The  latter  topic  was  disposed  of  in  the  Bibliotheca 
Sacra  for  October,  1909,^  and  of  necessity  much  of  what  is 
said  concerning  the  priesthood  was  incidentally  treated,  for  it 
is  not  possible  to  consider  the  places  of  sacrifice  without  some 
reference  to  the  persons  who  officiated  at  them.  Yet  much 
remains,  and  accordingly  it  is  proposed  to  devote  this  article 
to  a  correction  of  the  Graf-Wellhausen  hypothesis  respecting 
the  priesthood. 

Independent  investigation  of  the  material  phenomena  has 
led  me  to  the  conclusion  that  the  conservatives  and  the  critics 
are  alike  at  fault.  Two  errors  are  common  to  both  equally. 
Neither  set  of  students  have  seriously  attempted  to  apply  text- 
ual criticism,  and  both  have  assumed  that  the  traditional  views 
are  necessarily  the  only  explanations  possible.  Yet  the  author 
or  authors  of  the  Pentateuchal  documents  are  entitled  to  the 
same  measure  of  justice  as  all  other  authors.  It  is  not  too 
much  to  ask  that  some  trouble  should  be  given  to  the  task  of 

*Thi8  article  is  reprinted  as  Chapter  VI.  of  Essays  in  Penta- 
teuchal Criticism.  (Oberlin:  Bibliotheca  Sacra  Company;  London: 
Elliot  Stock.) 

231 


232  Pentatcnchal  Studies 

ascertaining  what  they  actually  wrote ;  and,  further,  that  in 
the  interpretation  of  their  writings  the  plain  and  obvious 
meaning  should  be  preferred  to  the  views  of  any  subsequent 
writer  whomsoever.  In  addition  I  am  of  the  opinion  that  the 
conservatives  and  the  critics  have  made  one  great  mistake  each. 
The  conservatives  have  assumed  that  all  the  statements  con- 
tained in  the  Bible  must  necessarily  be  of  equal  value  histor- 
ically. No  doubt  they  have  been  assisted  in  this  by  the  de- 
parture from  the  order  of  the  Jewish  canon,  which  does  not 
place  Chronicles,  Ezra,  and  Nehemiah  in  the  same  category 
with  Judges,  Samuel,  and  Kings.  These  latter  books  belong 
to  the  series  of  "  earlier  prophets  "  while  the  former  are  only 
hagiography.  This  mistake  has  been  avoided  by  most  of  the 
critics,  who,  however,  have  more  than  compensated  for  this 
by  adopting  an  impossible  documentary  theory  which  has 
placed  sound  history  out  of  their  reach.  A  mediating  school 
have  combined  both  positions.  To  save  the  history  of  the 
Chronicler  they  have  sacrificed  the  history  of  Moses,  and  have 
consequently  failed  to  do  any  good  to  either  in  spite  of  many 
shrewd  observations.  The  present  article  is  accordingly  writ- 
ten on  the  basis  of  a  frank  acceptance  of  four  main  principles, 
which  will  find  their  justification  as  the  inquiry  proceeds. 
These  are:  (1)  the  Mosaic  authenticity  of  all  the  Pentateuchal 
legislation,  (2)  subject  to  the  modifications  introduced  by  a 
scientific  textual  criticism  that  refuses  to  go  a  single  step  be- 
yond the  evidence  unnecessarily,  but  is  willing  to  apply  to  the 
documents  the  textual  principles  that  are  recognized  as  valid 
in  the  case  of  all  other  books  that  depend  on  a  MS.  tradition ; 
(3)  the  interpretation  of  the  statements  contained  in  the  orig- 
inal authorities  in  their  plain  and  natural  sense  as  the  palmary 
guides  to  the  meaning  of  those  authorities,  and  the  application 
of  the  ordinary  canons  of  legal  construction  to  the  laws  to  be 


Priests  and  Levites  333 

construed;  and  (4)  the  rejection  of  all  statements  in  the  Hagi- 
ography  that  conflict  with  the  Law  and  the  Prophets.  The 
inquiry  naturally  falls  into  sections.  It  is  convenient  to  begin 
with  the  data  of  P. 

PRIESTS   AND  LEVITES   IN   THE  PRIESTLY  CODE 

As  Wellhausen  claims  ^  that  the  position  of  the  Levites  is 
the  Achilles  heel  of  the  Priestly  Code,  I  proceed  at  once  to  the 
consideration  of  this  topic.  Apart  from  a  clause  in  Exodus 
xxxviii.  21  (which  is  lacking  in  one  of  the  old  Latin  copies) 
and  the  provisions  of  the  land  laws  in  Leviticus  xxv.^,  the 
whole  of  P's  data  as  to  Levites  (except  of  course  some  geneal- 
ogies) are  contained  in  the  book  of  Numbers. 

What  does  the  book  of  Numbers  tell  us  of  the  duties  of  the 
tribe  of  Levi?  It  may  be  well  to  quote  the  first  brief  sum- 
mary : — • 

"And  do  thou  appoint  the  Levites  over  the  dwelling  of  the  testi- 
mony, and  over  all  its  furniture,  and  over  all  that  belongeth  to  it: 
they  shall  carry  the  dwelling,  and  all  its  furniture,  and  they  shall 
serve  it,  and  round  about  the  dwelling  shall  they  camp.  And  when 
the  dwelling  setteth  forward,  the  Levites  shall  take  it  down ;  and 
when  the  dwelling  is  to  be  pitched,  the  Levites  shall  set  it  up:  and 
the  stranger  that  cometh  nigh  shall  die.  .  .  .  And  the  Levites  shall 
pitch  round  about  the  dwelling  of  the  testimony  ....  and  the  Le- 
vites shall  keep  the  charge  of  the  dwelling  of  the  testimony  "  (Num. 
1.  50-53). 

Thus  the  chief  functions  are  to  take  down,  set  up,  and  trans- 
port the  dwelling,  and  to  keep  its  charge. 

The  view  of  the  duties  of  the  Levites  here  set  forth  is  ampli- 
fied but  never  altered  in  the  subsequent  chapters.  Indeed, 
they  furnish  the  best  commentary  on  the  meaning  of  this  pass- 
age.   In  iii.  6-10  we  hear  that  the  Levites  are  to  serve  Aaron, 

^Prolegomena,  p.  167.  The  references  are  to  the  English  trans- 
lation throughout. 


234  Penfateuchal  Studies 

They  are  to  keep  his  charge  and  the  charge  of  all  the  congre- 
gation before  the  tent  of  meeting.  What  is  meant  by  these 
words  is  not  immediately  obvious.  In  the  Massoretic  text 
they  are  explained  by  the  phrase  "  to  serve  the  service  of  the 
dwelling"  (ver.  7),  but  these  words  are  unknown  to  the  Vul- 
gate. The  next  verse,  however,  gives  more  light.  They  are  to 
keep  the  vessels  of  the  tent  of  meeting.  It  appears  from  xviii. 
3  that  Levites  approaching  these  vessels  when  in  their  normal 
position  would  suffer  death.  Accordingly  we  must  infer  that 
the  keeping  that  is  meant  by  our  text  is  either  a  keeping  on 
the  march  or  else  the  encamping  round  the  Tabernacle.  The 
Massoretic  text  of  iii.  8  then  adds  "  and  the  charge  of  the 
children  of  Israel  to  serve  the  service  of  the  dwelling  " ;  but 
again  the  words  are  missing  from  the  Vulgate,  and  the  read- 
ings recorded  in  the  larger  Cambridge  Septuagint  also  sug- 
gest that  the  Massoretic  text  is  heavily  glossed.  The  ordinary 
Septuagintal  reading  here  is  not  "  to  serve,"  etc.,  but  "  according 
to  all  the  service,"  etc.  The  whole  phrase  is,  however,  omitted 
by  d.  Apparently,  therefore,  the  Levites  are  to  act  as  keep- 
ers. What  docs  this  mean?  The  census  of  the  Levites  (ver. 
11  ff.)  gives  a  great  deal  of  valuable  information  as  to  their 
functions.  Taking  the  Massoretic  text,  we  read :  "And  the 
charge  of  the  children  of  Gershon  in  the  tent  of  meeting  shall 
be  the  dwelling  and  the  tent,  the  covering  thereof,"  etc.  (ver. 
35  f.).  Now  this  is  phraseolog}''  which  if  authentic  lends 
itself  very  easily  to  misconception.  The  Hebrew  here  ren- 
dered "  in  "  does  not  necessarily  mean  "  in  " :  and  if  we  have 
before  us  the  original  text  it  cannot  possibly  mean  "  in."  The 
Levites  were  not  to  go  into  the  tent  at  all.  To  make  the 
meaning  plain  we  must  refer  to  another  passage.  In  chap- 
ter iv.  the  Massoretic  text  has  "  this  is  the  service  of  the  sons 
of  Kohath  in  the  tent  of  meeting"   (ver.  4).     Then   follows 


Priests  and  Levites  235 

a  description  of  how  Aaron  and  his  sons  are  to  come  and 
dismantle  the  tent  when  the  camp  sets  forward,  and  pack 
certain  articles.  When  they  have  finished,  the  sons  of  Ko- 
hath  "  shall  come  to  bear,  and  shall  not  touch  the  sanctuary, 
lest  they  die :  these  are  the  burden  [variant  reading",  "  bur- 
dens "1  of  the  sons  of  Kohath  in  the  tent  of  meeting"  (ver. 
15).  Here  attention  must  be  drawn  to  the  peculiarity  of  the 
English  version.  The  P^nglish  word  "  in  "  cannot  be  used  in 
this  sense.  The  carriage  of  portions  of  a  dismantled  tent 
cannot  be  described  in  English  idiom  as  service  in  that  tent. 
Therefore  we  must  be  on  our  guard  when  we  read  that 
the  Levites  were  to  do  service  in  the  tent  of  meeting.  They 
w^ere  to  serve  in  connection  with  it,  but  not  in  it.  "  The 
charge  of  the  children  of  Gershon  in  the  tent  of  meet- 
ing "  was  not  something  that  was  to  be  done  in  the  tent.  On 
the  contrary,  they  were  to  carry  the  specified  articles.  The 
charge  and  the  service  intended  were  a  charge  and  service  of 
porterage,  and  little  more  (see  iv.  21-28).  It  is  perhaps  un- 
necessary to  labor  the  point  much  further.  The  directions  in 
chapters  iii.  and  iv.  are  directions  for  porterage,  and  nothing 
else.^  The  Massoretic  text  may  have  suffered  somewhat. 
The  Versions  certainly  suggest  that  it  contains  a  good  many 
phrases  that  have  been  added  by  glossators :  it  is  certain  that 
these  laws  were  long  copied  by  men  who  had  a  very  different 
idea  of  the  position  and  duties  of  the  Levites ;  but  when  the 
matter  is  carefully  looked  into,  it  will  be  found  at  each  point 
that  we  are  concerned  with  directions  for  porterage  by  men 
who  would  be  liable  to  death  if  they  touched  the  articles  named 
when  the  tent  was  standing  in  its  normal  position.    From  time 

^In  Numbers  viii.  22  the  R.V.  renders  "went  in."     The  Hebrew 
need  not  mean  more  than  "  came." 


236  Pentatcuchal  Studies 

to  time  we  meet  with  phrases  the  meaning  of  which  is  not 
clear  at  first  sight,  but  when  the  context  is  examined  we  are 
always  brought  back  to  the  fact  that  we  have  before  us  por- 
terage instructions  and  little  else.  This  is  confirmed  by  vii. 
5  fT.  Here  wagons  are  taken,  and  again  we  meet  with  the 
phrase  "  to  serve  the  service  of  the  tent  of  meeting."  Two 
wagons  were  given  to  the  Gershonites  according  to  their  ser- 
vice, and  four  to  the  Merarites  according  to  theirs.  "  But 
unto  the  sons  of  Kohath  he  gave  none :  because  the  service  of 
the  sanctuary  belonged  unto  them :  they  bare  it  upon  their 
shoulders."  I  repeat,  the  only  service  contemplated  is  a  ser- 
vice of  porterage. 

In  viii.  26  a  distinction  is  drawn  between  the  keeping  of 
charge  and  the  doing  of  service.  "And  he  shall  minister  with 
his  brethren  in  the  tent  of  meeting  to  keep  the  charge :  but  he 
shall  not  do  service."  After  what  has  been,  said,  it  is  evident 
that  "  in  the  tent  "  cannot  be  taken  in  the  sense  required  by 
English  usage.  The  keeping  of  the  charge  must  apparently 
be  some  sort  of  service  short  of  actual  carriage  —  perhaps  re- 
sponsibility for  the  transport  of  the  vessels,  etc.,  but  possibly 
the  mere  camping  round  the  tent. 

The  same  tale  is  told  by  Numbers  xviii.  The  Levites  are. 
to  serve  Aaron.  They  are  to  keep  "  thy  charge,  and  the 
charge  of  all  the  tent :  only  they  shall  not  come  nigh  unto  the 
vessels  of  the  sanctuary  and  unto  the  altar"  (ver.  3).  The 
following  verse  repeats  that  they  are  to  keep  the  charge  of  the 
tent  of  meeting  for  all  the  service  of  the  tent ;  but  Aaron  and 
his  sons  are  to  keep  the  charge  of  the  sanctuary  and  the 
charge  of  the  altar  (ver.  5).  Again  in  verse  6  we  read  that 
the  Levites  are  to  do  the  service  of  the  tent  of  meeting.  Once 
more,  then,  it  appears  that  the  charge  and  the  service  are  in- 
timately connected,  and  constitute  the  whole  function  of  the 


Priests  and  Levites  237 

Levites.  What  the  service  is  we  know  clearly :  the  "  charge  " 
appears  to  bear  a  kindred  meaning-.  Certainly  it  cannot  mean 
anything  like  cleaning  the  vessels  that  they  were  not  even  to 
approach. 

The  only  other  passage  that  is  material  is  xvi.  9  f.  Here 
again  the  duty  of  the  Levites  is  to  do  the  service  of  the  dwell- 
ing of  the  Lord  :  but  this  is  followed  by  a  phrase  that  is  text- 
ually  doubtful  —  "and  to  stand  before  the  congregation  [LXX 
"tent"]  to  serve  them  [Vulg.  "him"]."  The  next  verse 
shows  that  they  are  excluded  from  the  priesthood  of  Aaron.^ 

Nowhere  is  there  any  hint  of  functions  that  could  have  been 
discharged  by  the  Levites  after  the  period  of  wanderings  had 
ceased. 

Such  are  the  positive  data  of  P  with  regard  to  the  functioi;is 
of  the  Levites.  To  appreciate  the  significance  of  those  data 
we  must  also  test  them  by  other  standards.  It  is  held  that  P 
stands  between  Ezekiel  and  the  Chronicler.  The  latter  es- 
pecially is  supposed  to  represent  the  working  of  the  completed 
Law.  Therefore  we  must  consider  how  far  the  views  of  these 
two  writers  correspond  with  the  contents  of  P.  Ezekiel  states 
in  a  passage  that  will  have  to  be  considered  more  fully  here- 
after (xliv.  9-14)  that  the  Levites  are  to  perform  certain 
duties.  The  state  of  the  text  makes  it  impossible  to  be  quite 
certain  what  exactly  the  first  of  these  duties  is,  but  apparently 
they  are  to  be  something  in  the  nature  of  gate-keepers.    Then 

^A  small  discrepancy  in  the  Massoretic  text  should  be  noticed. 
According  to  Numbers  Iv.  the  age  of  service  was  from  thirty  to  fifty 
years  old,  but  in  Numbers  viii.  twenty-five  years  is  given  as  the 
commencing  age.  The  LXX  does  not  confirm  the  Massoretic  text  in 
Numbers  iv.,  but  may  have  undergone  alteration.  I  think,  how- 
ever, that  it  would  be  unwise  to  place  much  reliance  on  the  num- 
ber 25  occurring  in  only  one  passage.  It  might  easily  be  due  to 
later  scribes,  who  certainly  understood  these  laws  in  a  sense  quite 
different  from  that  originally  intended. 


238  Pentateuchal  Studies 

he  continues :  "They  shall  slay  the  burnt-offering  and  the  sac- 
rifice for  the  people,  and  they  shall  stand  before  them  to  min- 
ister to  them."  Now  this  is  precisely  what  they  are  not  to  do 
in  P.  It  is  clear  from  the  opening-  chapters  of  Leviticus  that 
the  statutory  individual  sacrifices  were  to  be  slain  by  the  sac- 
rificants  themselves,  not  by  the  Levites.  There  can  therefore 
be  no  question  of  any  such  action  being  in  accordance  with 
the  Law.  Then  the  prophet  continues :  "  and  I  will  make 
them  keepers  of  the  charge  of  the  house,  for  all  its  service," 
etc.  (ver.  14).  The  resemblance  to  the  language  of  P  is  not 
more  obvious  than  the  dift'erence  in  the  sense.  There  is  here 
a  pouring  of  new  wine  into  old  bottles.  The  service  contem- 
plated could  not  possibly  be  the  carrying  about  of  sections  of 
the  walls.  The  "  charge  "  is  not  explained  by  this  verse,  but 
the  prophet's  meaning  appears  pretty  clearly  from  verses  7  f. 
We  learn  that  in  the  temple  foreigners  had  been  brought  in  "to 
be  in  my  sanctuary,  to  profane  it,  when  ye  brought  near  my 

bread,  fat  and  blood and  ye  set  them  to  keep  my  charge 

in  my  sanctuary."  That  at  least  seems  to  represent  the  mean- 
ing of  the  original  text  —  though  it  differs  slightly  from  the 
Massoretic  readings.  In  that  case,  therefore,  foreigners  had 
been  admitted  to  places  into  which  (if  P  refers  to  the  temple, 
as  the  critics  allege)  no  Levite  could  have  been  allowed  to 
penetrate  on  pain  of  death. 

The  Chronicler's  testimony  is  to  the  same  effect.  He  rep- 
resents the  Levites  as  performing  a  number  of  duties,  but  he 
expressly  attributes  some  of  these  to  post-Mosaic  ordinances. 
In  other  cases,  however,  he  tells  us  that  the  Levites  had  to 
perform  duties  which  either  find  no  mention  in  P  or  else  are 
assigned  to  the  priests.  For  example,  the  preparation  and 
placing  of  the  shcwbread  falls  to  the  Levites  in  1  Chronicles 
ix.  32;  xxiii.  29;  2  Chronicles    xiii.  11;  but  not  in  Leviticus 


Priests  and  Lcvites  239 

xxiv.  5-8,  and  the  same  may  be  said  of  "  the  fine  flour  for  a 
meal-offering-,  whether  of  unleavened  wafers,  or  of  that  which 
is  baked  in  the  pan,  or  of  that  which  is  soaked,  and  for  all 
manner  of  measure  and  size  "  (1  Chron.  xxiii.  29).  It  cannot 
be  that  in  the  intent  of  P  such  duties  were  to  be  discharged 
by  the  Levites,  for  a  momentary  glance  at  the  sanctuary  would 
have  meant  death  (Num.  iv.  20).  When  we  read  that  the 
Levites  were  "  for  the  service  of  the  house  of  the  Lord,  over 
the  courts,  and  over  the  chambers,  and  over  the  cleansing  of 
every  holy  thing"  (1  Chron.  xxiii.  28),  we  remember  not 
merely  that  such  duties  nowhere  appear  in  P,  but  that  that 
document  knows  nothing  of  any  chambers,  would  not  have 
allowed  the  Levites  to  touch  many  of  the  holy  things,  and  re- 
garded service  simply  as  porterage.  Again,  1  Chronicles  xxiii. 
30  reads :  "  and  to  stand  every  morning  to  thank  and  praise 
the  Lord,  and  likewise  at  even."  This  is  quite  unknown  to  P, 
and  indeed  the  Chronicler  himself  elsewhere  regards  the  mu- 
sical service  as  instituted  by  David,  not  Moses.  Once  more, 
1  Chronicles  xxiii.  31  assigns  to  the  Levites  the  task  of  offer- 
ing burnt-offerings  on  certain  occasions :  but  P  expressly  for- 
bids their  approaching  the  altar  (Num.  xviii.  3)  on  pain  of 
death  to  both  Levites  and  priests !  It  is  unnecessary  to  exam- 
ine the  statements  of  Chronicles  in  further  detail.  They  may 
sometimes  represent  a  later  interpretation  of  P :  they  certainly 
do  not  represent  the  plain  meaning  of  his  ordinances.  Well- 
hausen  nowhere  shows  his  incompetence  to  deal  with  such  top- 
ics as  the  present  more  clearly  than  when  he  writes  "  that  in 
the  temple  of  Solomon  even  heathen  (Zech.  xiv.  21),  probably 
captives,  were  employed  to  do  hierodulic  services  which,  ac- 
cording to  the  law,  ought  to  have  been  rendered  by  Levites, 
and  which  afterwards  actually  were  so  rendered"  (p.  123). 
According  to  the  law  the  performance  of  some  of  these  "  hier- 


240  Pentateuchal  Studies 

odulic  services  "  by  the  Levites  would  have  been  visited  by 
death,  while  their  performance  of  others  is  not  even  contem- 
plated. Hereafter  we  shall  consider  the  reason  that  brought 
about  the  change.  For  the  moment  we  are  merely  concerned 
with  ascertaining  the  data  of  P  and  their  true  meaning. 

Curiously  enough,  the  critics  end  by  recognizing  something 
of  all  this,  but  without  seeing  its  bearing  on  their  case.  Thus 
Kuenen  writes :  "Moreover  we  must  not  lose  sight  of  the 
fact  that  P  puts  forward  his  ordinances  about  Priests  and 
Levites  in  the  form  of  a  description  of  the  Mosaic  period  and 
the  organization  of  the  cultus  at  that  time.  His  Levites  con- 
sequently are  fully  occupied  with  the  taking  down  and  erec- 
tion of  the  Tent  of  Meeting  and  with  the  transport  of  all  the 
holy  vessels,  and  we  are  not  surprised  that  we  learn  little  or 
nothing  of  what  they  will  have  to  do  at  a  permanent  sanctu- 
ary." ^  I  venture  to  think  that  most  people  will  be  sur- 
prised. P's  whole  object  being  to  introduce  a  particular 
organization  of  worship,  it  is  odd  that  he  should  have  said 
nothing  at  all  about  it  (as  we  must  suppose  on  Kuenen's 
theory):  and  it  is  still  more  odd  —  though  Kuenen  did  not 
detect  these  facts  —  that  he  should  have  appointed  death  as 
the  penalty  —  or  should  we  say  reward  ?  —  of  doing  the  acts  . 
that  he  desired  these  persons  to  perform. 

Thus,  when  the  position  of  the  Levites  in  P  is  fairly  con- 
sidered, certain  points  stand  out  at  once  that  are  extraordi- 
narily unfavorable  to  the  Wellhausen  case. 

First,  the  hypothesis  that  in  P  we  have  a  projection  of  later 
conditions  into  the  desert  period  breaks  down  under  the  weight 
of  P's  data.-    The  writer  conceives  the  Levites  primarily  as  a 

*  Kuenen,   Gesammelte  Abhandlungen,   p.  478. 

*Thus  Wellhausen  writes:  "The  former  [i.e.  the  sons  of  Aaron] 
are  priests  of  the  tabernacle,  the  latter  of  the  temple;  but  as  In 
point  of  fact  the  only  distinction  to  be  drawn  between  the  Mosaic 


Priests  and  Levites  241 

body  of  sacred  porters.  Now  nobody  living  in  any  subsequent 
age  could  suppose  that  there  was  either  occasion  or  possibility 
to  carry  about  the  temple.  If  we  are  really  to  adopt  the  projec- 
tion theory  according  to  which  the  duties  of  the  Levites  in  P 
mirror  their  duties  in  the  second  Temple,  we  must  imagine  a 
priestly  gentleman  picturing  to  himself  sections  of  the  tem- 
ple walls  and  bits  of  the  roof  as  being  carried  about  at  odd 
times  by  Levites  on  their  shoulders.  In  fact,  on  this  view  he 
must  have  conceived  the  temple  as  a  sort  of  a  toy  house  such 
as  children  play  with,  an  erection  that  could  be  set  up  and 
taken  down  at  will.  The  absurdity  of  these  propositions  must 
surely  be  obvious  to  everybody. 

Secondly,  the  net  result  of  such  a  scheme  would  be  to 
create  a  body  of  Levites  for  use  during  the  period  of  wander- 
ings and  never  thereafter.  As  soon  as  the  desert  age  was 
over,  the  whole  tribe  would  find  their  main  occupation  gone. 
How  can  we  conceive  that  any  legislator  deliberately  sat  down 
and  invented  such  a  scheme  centuries  after  the  epoch  to  which 
it  relates,  well  knowing  that  in  so  far  as  his  scheme  purported 
to  be  a  narrative  of  events  it  was  fictitious  from  beginning  to 
end,  and  in  so  far  as  it  might  be  regarded  as  a  legislation  ap- 
plicable to  his  own  or  any  future  day  there  was  not  a  line  in  it 
that  could  conceivably  be  put  into  practice?  If  any  theorist 
can  be  conceived  as  acting  in  this  way,  how  are  we  to  sup- 
pose that  his  work  would  meet  with  acceptance?  Yet  that  and 
nothing  less  is  what  the  theory  demands. 

Thirdly,  P  neither  embodies  the  views  of  Ezekiel  nor  finds 
an  accurate  reflection  in  Chronicles.  The  views  of  P  are  quite 
different  from  those  of  the  other  two  books.     The  facts  are 

and  the  actual  central  sanctuary  is  that  between  shadow  and  sub- 
stance, so  neither  can  any  other  be  made  between  the  Mosaic  and 
the  actual  central  priesthood"    (p.  125). 


242  PcntatcucJial  Studies 

such  as  to  enable  us  to  say  definitely  that  P  is  not  in  line  with 
them.  It  is  impossible  to  assume  that  he  appointed  the  death 
penalty  for  certain  acts  if  performed  by  Levites,  because  he 
really  wished  the  Levites  to  perform  those  acts.  It  is  certainly 
true  that  in  the  Pentateuch  phrases  like  "  keeping  charge  "  are 
used  which  in  the  absence  of  any  context  might  very  easily 
be  held  to  refer  to  such  duties  as  we  find  assigned  to  the 
Levites  in  Ezekiel  and  in  Chronicles.  But  the  author  of  the 
Pentateuch  must  be  judged  on  his  own  statements,  not  on  the 
understanding  of  any  other  writer  or  of  later  transcribers  of 
his  work,  and  when  we  look  into  these  statements  and  try  to 
m.ake  the  various  functions  suggested  fit  into  the  phraseology 
we  always  discover  some  Pentateuchal  precept  that  negatives 
the  conclusion  we  might  otherwise  draw.  The  truth  is  that 
this  phraseology  has  a  history.  In  the  Pentateuch  it  is  used 
of  desert  services  and  nothing  else :  in  the  later  books  it  is 
applied  to  permanent  services  as  a  technical  term  and  the 
Pentateuchal  legislation  is  thus  read  in  the  light  of  later  cir- 
cumstances. In  a  historical  inquiry  that  method  cannot  be  fol- 
lowed. We  are  bound  to  go  behind  the  expressions  used  to 
the  writer's  original  meaning. 

Thus,  in  whatever  light  the  matter  be  viewed,  the  theory 
breaks  down  hopelessly,  and  we  see  that  we  are  face  to  face 
with  two  alternatives,  and  no  more.  Either  the  passages  re- 
lating to  the  Levites  are  Mosaic  or  else  they  are  moonshine. 
Tertium  non  datur.  Neither  the  period  of  Joshua  and  the 
Judges,  nor  the  Exile,  nor  any  other  conceivable  date,  can 
possibly  be  made  to  fit.'' 

^Similarly  Baudissin  is  finally  driven  to  the  following  admission: 
"The  Priestly  Writing  will  in  the  first  instance  have  circulated 
only  in  priestly  circles  and  did  not  become  binding  law  for  the  peo- 
ple before  the  Exile.  In  the  full  sense  it  never  heeame  so  and  could 
not    become   so;    for   under   the   foi'ms   of   the   Mosaic   period    this 


Priests  and  Lcvitcs  343 

To  this  result  our  investigation  enables  us  to  append  cer- 
tain corollaries.  We  have  found  that  P  presents  us  with  dis- 
positions relating-  to  a  whole  tribe  for  the  desert  period  and 
making  no  provision  for  their  future  after  the  Conquest.  His 
regulations  are  purely  transitory.  Therefore  we  must  con- 
clude that  some  other  dispositions  differing  from  these  and 
capable  of  being  applied  when  the  Israelites  were  settled  in 
Canaan  were  also  given  by  Moses :  for  he  certainly  cannot 
have  supposed  that  the  practice  of  the  wilderness  could  have 
continued  for  all  time.  Consequently  we  must  expect  to  find 
elsewhere  supplementary  regulations  contemplating  entirely 
different  circumstances  and  proceeding  on  other  lines :  and  the 
dift'erences  will  not  necessarily  be  an  argument  against  the 
Mosaic  authenticity  of  both  sets  of  regulations. 

Secondly,  we  are  entitled  to  expect  that  P's  regulations  as 
to  the  Levites  will  provide  us  with  confirmation  of  a  view  to 
which  former  investigations  have  already  led  us,  viz.  that  the 
numbers  of  the  Pentateuch  are  largely  corrupt.  If  these  reg- 
ulations are  Mosaic  they  will  be  true  to  the  circumstances  of 
the  Mosaic  age,  and  those  circumstances  rule  out  the  number 
22,000.  We  do  in  fact  find  what  we  expect  in  Numbers  iv. 
The  Levites  are  so  few  that  Aaron  and  his  two  sons  can  per- 
sonally control  them  all  and  appoint  them  to  their  individual 
tasks:  "Aaron  and  his  sons  shall  go  in,  and  appoint  them 
every  one  to  his  service  and  to  his  burden  "  (ver.  19)  ;  "  and 
by  name  ye  shall  appoint  the  instruments  of  the  charge  of 
their  burden"  (ver.  32).  Six  wagons  drawn  by  twelve  oxen 
were  sufficient  for  the  transport  of  everything  that  could  not  be 

writing  in  many  cases  pictures  conditions  as  they  existed,  at  no  time 
after  the  settlement  in  Canaan"  (my  italics).  (Geschichte  des  alt- 
testamentliclieu  Priesterthums,  p.  280 ;  compare  tlie  same  writer's 
article  "  Priests  and  Levites "  in  Hastings's  larger  Dictionary  of 
the  Bible.) 


244  Pentatcuchal  Studies 

carried  on  men's  shoulders  (chap.  vii.).  Facts  such  as  these 
abundantly  confirm  our  previous  observations.  Nor  should 
we  be  misled  by  the  narratives  that  speak  of  "  princes  "  of 
various  sections  of  the  Levites.  The  meaning  would  in  some 
respects  be  more  aptly  given  by  the  rendering  "  foremen." 
Before  passing  away  from  the  Levites  we  must  note  a  point 
in  P's  representation  to  which  we  shall  have  to  return  here- 
after. For  the  purposes  of  their  service  the  Levites  undergo 
a  special  ritual  (Num.  viii.),  but  it  is  not  a  ritual  of  consecra- 
tion.    It  is  only  a  ritual  of  purification. 

In  addition  to  the  Levites  we  find  in  P  Aaron  the  priest  (at 
a  later  date  Eleazar  the  priest)  and  the  sons  of  Aaron  the 
priests,  but  it  is  noteworthy  that  this  reading  does  not  appear 
to  be  recognized  by  all  the  authorities  in  any  place.  Owing  to 
the  system  of  abbreviations  which  obtained  at  the  time  the 
LXX  was  made  and  has  been  continued  even  in  some  Hebrew 
MSS.  that  are  still  extant,  it  was  possible  to  read  the  same 
Hebrew  phrase  either  as  "  the  sons  of  Aaron  the  priest  "  or 
"  the  sons  of  Aaron  the  priests."  In  Leviticus  i.  the  Massoretic 
text  adopts  the  singular  in  verse  7  and  the  plural  in  verse  8, 
but  where  the  Massoretic  text  has  the  plural  the  other  authori- 
ties always  attest  one  or  more  variants.  Sometimes  we  find  the 
singular,  sometimes  one  of  the  phrases  is  omitted,  sometimes 
a  displacement  in  the  order  suggests  the  presence  of  a  gloss. 
Usually  it  is  the  Old  Latin  that  has  the  singular,  either  with 
or  without  the  support  of  other  authorities.  A  typical  in- 
stance occurs  in  Leviticus  i.  11.  There  the  Massoretic  text 
has  the  plural,  the  Septuagintal  MS.  m  and  the  Vulgate  omit 
the  word  altogether,  while  the  Old  Latin  and  a  Bohairic  copy 
read  the  singular.  It  is  unnecessary  to  go  through  all  the 
cases,  but  it  is  proper  to  say  that  in  Leviticus  xiii.  2,  where 


Priests  and  Lcvitcs  245 

the  Massoretic  text  gives  us  "  to  Aaron  the  priest  or  to  one  of 
his  sons  the  priests,"  the  Vulgate  omits  "  the  priests." 

Thus  we  find,  first,  the  high  priest,  most  usually  called  "  the 
priest,"  but  sometimes  designated  by  other  expressions ;  and, 
secondly,  "  the  sons  of  Aaron  "  or  "  the  priests."  To  these 
also  the  expression  "  the  priest "  could  be  applied  either  to 
designate  descent  or  in  the  ritual  as  meaning  "  the  officiating 
priest  " ;  but  the  title  here  has  not  the  same  force  as  when  ap- 
plied to  the  high  priest,  who  was  the  priest  par  excellence. 
Similarly  an  Englishman  speaking  of  "  the  Prince "  means 
the  Prince  of  Wales  unless  there  is  something  in  the  context 
to  show  that  he  is  referring  to  some  other  prince.  This  usage 
of  the  term  in  P  becomes  important  when  we  reach  the  later 
history,  since  there  too  we  find  persons  bearing  the  title  "  the 
priest "  who  obviously  stand  at  the  head  of  the  hierarchy. 
The  phrase  "Aaron  the  high  priest  "  is  entirely  unknown  to  P. 
Where  the  high  priest's  name  is  given,  the  only  qualifying 
apposition  possible  in  his  usage  is  "  the  priest."  ^ 

On   a   survey    of   the   evidence   as   to  priests  certain  points 

emerge   which  are  material  to  the  present   discussion.     The 

position  of  the  priests  is  very  dififerent  to  that  of  the  Levites. 

If  we  ask  why  the  priest  is  so  holy,  the  answer  appears  to  be 

that  he  is  made  so  by  the  combination  of  two  qualifications  — 

the  Divine  choice  and  his  consecration.     The  Levites,  it  must 

^  It  will  be  convenient  at  this  point  to  explain  a  little  discrep- 
ancy in  the  Massoretic  text.  It  is  said  that  in  some  passages  (e.g. 
Ex.  xxix.  7;  Lev.  xxi.  10.  12)  only  the  high  priest  is  anointed, 
while  in  others  all  sons  of  Aaron  undergo  this  rite.  It  is  the  case 
that  the  high  priest  alone  is  anointed  in  some  passages.  The  trou- 
ble has  arisen  partly  through  a  confusion  between  spi'inkling  and 
anointing,  and  partly  through  textual  corruption.  The  critical 
case  is  set  out  on  page  251  of  the  Oxford  Hexateuch,  vol.  i.  Of 
the  passages  that  give  trouble,  Numbers  iii.  3  was  unknown  to 
the  recension  of  the  LXX  which  Lagarde  thought  Luciauic,  in 
Exodus   xxviii.    41   the    words    "  and    thou    shalt   anoint   them "    are 


246  Pcntateiichal  Studies 

be  remembered,  were  not  consecrated,  only  purified,  and  in 
their  case  P  contains  no  Divine  command  enabling-  them  to 
perform  the  duties  of  priests.  With  regard  to  the  priestly 
tasks  the  legislation  wears  a  twofold  aspect.  On  the  one  hand 
it  is  given  primarily  for  the  wilderness  and  bears  the  stamp 
of  the  conditions  of  the  time.  On  the  other  much  of  it  was 
intended  to  continue  after  the  conquest.  Two  features  call 
for  special  notice  —  the  inadequacy  of  the  staff  to  the  post- 
conquest  conditions  and  the  signs  of  date. 

If  we  turn  to  Leviticus  xiii.  f.  we  shall  find  laws  dealing 
with  leprosy.  Let  us  test  the  application  of  these.  At  the 
very  beginning  of  the  earlier  chapter  we  read  that  a  man  who 
has  certain  symptoms  is  to  be  brought  unto  Aaron  the  priest 
or  unto  one  of  his  sons.  Then  follow  rules  for  inspecting  and 
isolating  the  patient.  Remembering  that  on  the  critical  the- 
ory P  assumes  the  capital  at  Jerusalem  as  self-evident  and  the 
priests  as  concentrated  there,  we  must  ask  how  such  provis- 
ions w^ere  to  work  after  the  conquest.  During  the  desert 
period  nothing  could  have  been  simpler ;  but  what  was  to 
happen  when  the  Israelites  dwelt  all  over  Canaan  from  Beer- 
sheba  to  Dan?  Nay  more,  how  could  such  regulations  con- 
ceivably occur  to  the  mind  of  any  sane  man  during  or  after 
the  exile  when  the  bulk  of  the  Israelites  were  in  Babylonia 
and  there  were  important  Jewish  colonies  in  Egypt  and  else- 

not  in  the  Vulgate,  nor  are  the  material  words  of  Exodus  xl.  13, 
15.  In  Leviticus  vii.  35  a  Septuagintal  MS.,  the  Ethiopic.  Armenian, 
and  Vulgate  omit  "anointing  portion"  before  "his  sons."  On  the 
other  hand,  Exodus  xxix.  21  prescribes  sprinkling,  which  is  quite 
a  different  rite  to  anointing,  Leviticus  viii.  30  narrates  the  fulfil- 
ment of  the  command,  and  Leviticus  x.  7  presumably  refers  to 
this.  There  remains  only  Exodus  xxx.  30.  In  view  of  xxix.  7 
and  all  the  other  passages,  it  is  most  probable  that  we  have  here 
some  slight  corrujition  tliat  cannot  be  corrected  from  the  LXX  or 
the  Vulgate.  "And  his  sons"  may  easily  be  a  gloss,  and  the  words 
"  and  thou  shalt  sanctify  them  "  may  have  come  in  from  the  pre- 
ceding verse  by  dittography. 


Priests  and  Lcvitcs  247 

where?  And  if  the  theory  is  absurd  when  it  is  apphed  to 
men,  what  are  we  to  say  when  we  read  of  leprous  g-arments 
(Lev.  xiii.  47  ff.)  ?  Was  a  man  to  make  the  pilgrimage  from 
Babylonia  to  Jerusalem  to  consult  a  priest  about  a  doubtful 
garment?  And  what  about  the  leper's  offerings  in  chapter 
xiv.  ?  Could  they  conceivably  have  been  intended  for  such 
circumstances?  It  is  easy  to  multiply  such  questions.  Neither 
the  critics  nor  P  can  supply  the  answer. 

Then  we  come  to  a  passage  which  is  expressly  stated  to 
apply  to  the  period  after  the  conquest  (Lev.  xiv.  33-53).  It 
deals  with  houses  that  are  leprous.  The  owner  is  to  notify 
the  priest,  and  the  latter  is  to  come  and  inspect  the  house.  In 
certain  eventualities  he  will  then  shut  up  the  house  and  return 
on  the  seventh  day.  Clearly  this  is  not  a  duty  that  could  have 
been  discharged  for  the  whole  country  immediately  after  the 
conquest  by  the  descendants  of  Aaron.  It  postulates  the  pres- 
ence of  priests  either  in  or  within  reasonable  distance  of  every 
"  city."  It  contemplates  a  far  larger  body  of  priests  than  the 
descendants  of  Aaron  could  have  been  for  some  time  after  the 
conquest,  and  it  demands  purificatory  rites  over  running  wa- 
ter which  are  obviously  designed  to  be  practicable  for  those 
who  mig"ht  be  at  a  distance  from  the  religious  capital. 

It  is  not  necessary  to  continue  this  examination  of  the  laws. 
What  has  been  said  in  the  case  of  leprosy  applies  (mutatis 
mutandis)  to  other  portions  of  P :  and  the  antiquity  of  that 
document  and  the  incompleteness  of  its  priestly  staff  become 
evident  here  as  elsewhere.  Yet  there  is  one  point  that  helps 
to  explain  much  of  the  subsequent  history  of  the  priesthood 
—  I  refer  to  the  portion  of  the  sacrificial  ritual  to  be  per- 
formed in  the  case  of  statutory  individual  sacrifices  by  the 
sacrificant  himself.  Few  readers  of  Leviticus  i.  consider  how 
clearly  it  mirrors  early  and  simple  conditions.     It  is  true  that 


248  Pcntatcuchal  Studies 

the  LXX  makes  the  priests,  and  not  the  sacrificant.  kill  the 
victim ;  but  the  correctness  of  the  Massoretic  text  is  proved 
by  iii.  2,  where  the  plural  is  impossible.  Now  turn  to  1  Kings 
viii.  63,  where  we  read  of  Solomon's  enormous  sacrifice.  How 
could  this  ritual  possibly  be  applied  to  such  a  case?  It  may 
be  objected,  with  reason,  that  this  sacrifice  of  Solomon's  was 
entirely  exceptional.  Yet,  while  this  may  readily  be  granted, 
two  reflections  suggest  themselves.  With  the  growth  of  lux- 
ury the  upper  classes  would  inevitably  object  to  slaughtering 
and  flaying  the  cattle  personally.  Moreover,  sacrifices  would 
tend  to  grow  in  the  number  of  victims,  and  the  task  would 
become  impossible.  It  is  one  thing  to  slaughter  and  flay  a 
single  animal  with  one's  own  hand :  it  is  quite  another  to 
slaughter  and  flay  fifty  or  a  hundred  or  five  hundred.  The 
ritual  presupposes  very  simple  conditions.  With  the  growth 
of  luxury  modifications  would  inevitably  have  to  be  introduced. 

Thus  in  the  case  of  the  priests,  as  in  the  case  of  the  Levites, 
we  see  that  P  taken  by  itself  is  a  torso,  and  nothing  more, 
and  that  it  represents  the  earliest  age  in  the  national  history. 

The  portions  of  the  Pentateuch  that  we  have  still  to  exam- 
ine will  supply  the  solutions  of  some  of  its  problems. 

PRIESTS  AND  LEVITES  IN  THE  OTHER   PORTIONS  OF  THE 
PENTATEUCH 

The  data  of  JE  are  very  scanty.  Perhaps  the  most  impor- 
tant passage  in  the  eyes  of  the  critical  school  is  Exodus  iv.  14, 
where  we  read  of  "Aaron  thy  brother  the  Levite."  It  is 
gravely  urged  that  this  passage  proves  that  the  Levites  were 
not  a  tribe,  but  a  class  of  persons  of  priestly  skill ;  in  fact,  that 
"  Levite  "  here  denotes  profession,  not  ancestry.  The  reason 
advanced  is  that  this  phrase  is  addressed  to  Moses,  who  was 
necessarily  of  the  same  ancestry  as  his  own  brother  and  would 


Priests  and  Lcvites  249 

therefore  not  require  to  be  informed  of  his  descent.  It  is 
sought  to  buttress  this  argument  by  a  reference  to  Judges 
xvii.  7,  where  we  read :  "And  there  was  a  youth  from  Bethle- 
hem-judah,  of  the  tribe  of  Judah,  and  he  was  a  Levite,  and  he 
sojourned  there."  This  youth,  it  is  said,  came  of  the  tribe  of 
Judah,  and  therefore  when  we  are  told  that  he  was  a  Levite 
we  must  understand  this  of  his  profession.  In  point  of  fact, 
this  youth  "  of  the  tribe  of  Judah  "  was  a  grandson  of  Moses, 
being  the  son  of  Gershom  (xviii.  30).  When  we  read  in  the 
last-cited  verse  "  son  of  Gershom,  son  of  Manasseh,"  in  the 
English  Versions,  we  must  not  be  misled.  The  Hebrew  has 
"  son  of  M  sh  h  "  (Moses).  The  letter  "  n  "  was  then  inserted 
by  the  scribes  in  a  suspended  position  to  make  the  name 
"M  n  sh  h"  (Manasseh)  out  of  reverence  for  the  lawgiver's 
memory.  But  the  true  reading  is  "  Moses,"  and  the  youth  in 
question  was  therefore  his  grandson  and  a  descendant  of 
Levi.  Moreover,  xvii.  7  itself  says  as  much.  This  Levite 
"  sojourned  "  in  Bethlehem.  This  word  "  sojourned  "  is  the 
technical  word  for  members  of  the  tribe  of  Levi,  who  had  no 
tribal  lot  like  the  secular  tribes.  How,  then,  comes  it  that  this 
youth  who  was  a  Levite  is  described  as  being  of  the  tribe  of  Ju- 
dah ?  The  explanation  is  very  simple.  As  is  well  known,  there 
were  two  Greek  translations  of  the  book  of  Judges  both  of  which 
are  quoted  as  Septuagint,  Now  in  Field's  Hexapla  ad  loc.  we 
find  two  renderings  of  the  passage  which  in  the  Massoretic 
text  runs  "  from  Bethlehem-judah,  of  the  tribe  of  Judah." 
According  to  the  one,  the  text  should  be  "  from  Bethlehem 
the  city  of  Judah  " ;  according  to  the  other,  supported  by  The- 
odotion.  it  should  be  "  from  the  city  of  Bethlehem-judah." 
Neither  of  these  two  confirms  the  Massoretic  text,  and  neither 
contains  a  hint  that  Jonathan  was  anything  but  a  Levite  by 
descent.     The  difficulty  in  this  case  arises  from  slight  textual 


250  Pentateuchal  Studies 

corruption,  and  no  support  can  be  derived  from  this  passage 
for  the  theory  of  professional  Levites. 

If,  now,  we  return  to  Exodus  iv.  14,  we  shall  see  that  the 
hypothesis  is  equally  untenable  there.  The  origin  of  the 
phrase  leaps  to  the  eyes.  The  full  designation  of  an  Israelite 
in  the  Mosaic  age  was  "A,  son  of  B,  of  the  tribe  of  X,"  or 
else  "A,  son  of  B,  the  X-ite."  Aaron  would  normally  have 
been  described  as  "Aaron,  son  of  Amram,  the  Levite."  In  a 
speech  made  to  ]\Ioses,  however,  the  relationship  to  the  lat- 
ter is  naturally  substituted  for  "  son  of  Amram  " ;  and  thus  we 
get  "  Aaron,  thy  brother,  the  Levite."  The  designation  is  no 
more  remarkable  than  "  your  brother  J.  S."  would  be  in  a 
speech  made  in  our  own  day  to  "  T.  S."  It  is  true  that  in 
such  a  case  "  your  brother  J."  would  be  the  more  usual  desig- 
nation ;  but  everybod)'-  knows,  from  personal  experience,  that 
there  are  occasions  on  which  the  former  style  is  adopted.  To 
assign  any  other  meaning  to  the  phrase  is  to  land  ourselves 
in  a  morass  of  absurdities.  We  know  that  before  the  age  of 
Moses  the  Levites  were  a  secular  tribe,  who,  according  to  the 
blessing  of  Jacob,  were  not  in  particularly  good  repute.  Im- 
mediately after  the  age  of  Moses  ^  we  find  that  the  members 
of  the  tribe  of  Levi  enjoy  a  sacred  character,  and  in  the  bless- 
ing of  Moses,  which  is  supposed  to  be  an  early  poem.  Levi,  the 
priestly  body,  is  a  tribe.  To  postulate  by  the  side  of  the  only 
Levites  we  know,  the  tribal  Levites,  an  otherwise  unknown 
professional  class  termed  "  Levites " ;  to  suppose  that  the 
tribe  then  suddenly  acquired  a  sacred  character  (as  shown  by 
the  data  of  J  and  E,  yet  to  be  examined,  and  by  the  correct 
text  of  this  passage  of  Judges),  and  that  these  two  sets  of 

^Jonathan  is  described  as  a  young  man  in  the  book  of  Judges. 
His  father  Gershom  was  born  before  the  forty  years  of  wandering 
began.  The  episode  of  his  priesthood  to  Mlcah  must  therefore 
have  occurred  only  a  few  years  after  the  lawgiver's  death. 


Priests  and  Lcvitcs  351 

Levites  are  entirely  distinct,  is  to  suppose  a  most  amazing  set 
of  absurdities.  Our  sources  tell  us  of  but  one  kind  of  Le- 
vites —  the  members  of  the  tribe  of  Levi  —  and  there  is  not 
a  scintilla  of  evidence  for  any  other.^ 

Apart  from  the  blessing  of  Moses  (to  be  considered  here- 
after), the  Pentateuchal  passages  regarded  by  the  critics  as 
early  supply  us  with  only  one  reference  to  the  special  charac- 
ter of  Levi  —  Exodus  xxxii.  26-29.  The  text  is  not  in  a  sat- 
isfactory condition,  but  there  is  some  question  of  consecration 
and  a  Divine  blessing.  The  testimony  of  Deuteronomy  and 
the  difficulties  of  the  passage  suggest  that  the  text  is  here  in- 
complete. 

Of  the  priests  we  learn  but  little  in  JE.  As  has  been  shown 
elsewhere,  "  elders  "  should  be  read  for  "  priests  "  in  Exodus 
xix.  22,  24.2  'pj^g  theory  that  Joshua  was  a  priest  has  also 
been  demonstrated  to  be  baseless.-^  Deuteronomy  x.  6  (E) 
tells  us  that  "Aaron  died,  and  Eleazar  his  son  ministered  in 
the  priest's  office  in  his  stead."  This  entirely  agrees  with  P 
so  far  as  it  goes.  It  shows  us  that  Aaron  was  "  the  priest," 
and  that  he  was  succeeded  by  Eleazar,  as  in  P.  Some  of  the 
laws  imply  the  existence  of  a  priesthood,  but  give  us  no  infor- 
mation as  to  its  composition.  The  passage  in  the  blessing  of 
Moses  (Deut.  xxxiii.  8-11)  is  really  the  most  valuable  of  all 
these,  but  it  will  be  clearer  when  we  have  considered  the  evi- 
dence of  D. 

^  Reference  is  sometimes  made  to  the  article  "  the  Levite "  in 
such  passages  as  Exodus  vl.  19.  This  merely  shows  that  the  text- 
ual evidence  has  not  been  examined.  Thus  in  this  verse  the  LXX 
and  "Vulgate  read  "  Levi,"  not  "  the  Levite."  In  such  cases  the 
article  is  due  to  later  copyists.  For  the  benefit  of  those  who  are 
not  Hebraists  it  should  be  said  that  there  is  no  difference  in  the 
original  between  Levi  and  Levite. 

-, Supra,  p.   2:10. 

*  Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism,  pp.  66-70  =:  Bibliotheca  Sa- 
cra, July,  1908,  pp.  494-497. 


252  Pentatcnchal  Studies 

This  last  document  takes  up  all  the  threads  that  we  have 
had  to  follow,  and  weaves  them  into  a  consistent  and  intellig-i- 
ble  whole ;  but,  as  already  stated,  it  certainly  suggests  that 
something  has  fallen  out  from  Exodus. 

In  order  fully  to  appreciate  the  data  of  Deuteronomy,  we 
must  briefly  recall  the  difficulties  with  which  P  presented  us. 
First,  we  found  a  whole  tribe  of  Levites,  chosen  by  God  but 
not  consecrated,  whose  occupation  would  come  to  an  end  with 
the  conquest,  with  the  result  that  as  soon  as  the  ark  and  tent 
were  located  permanently  at  any  one  spot  they  would  have  no 
duties  to  perform.  Then  we  saw  a  small  body  of  consecrated 
priests  who  could  not  possibly  discharge  the  functions  that 
would  devolve  upon  them  with  the  conquest,  and  we  discov- 
ered laws  which  could  be  administered  only  by  a  numerous 
priesthood  settled  all  over  the  country.  Deuteronomy  also 
knows  such  laws.  It  too  has  a  rite  to  be  performed  locally 
with  priestly  assistance  by  running  water  (xxi.  1-9).  It  too 
contemplates  leprosy  laws  administered  by  priests  (xxiv.  8). 
But  in  both  cases  it  speaks  of  "  the  priests,  the  Levites." 

When  it  is  carefully  examined  three  points  emerge:  (1)  the 
original  text  of  Deuteronomy  contained  provisions  enlarging 
the  rights  and  duties  of  the  Levites;  (2)  Deuteronomy  prob- 
ably testifies  to  a  lacuna  in  the  text  of  the  earlier  books;  (3) 
the  general  situation  postulated  is  the  same  as  that  which 
would  have  been  brought  about  by  P,  but  there  are  certain  ap- 
parent discrepancies  which  require  further  notice. 

Perhaps  the  most  important  passage  is  Deuteronomy  xviii. 
6-8.  There  are  various  small  textual  differences  which  are 
unimportant  from  our  present  point  of  view ;  but  there  is  one 
which  changes  the  whole  meaning  of  the  passage.  In  verse 
7  a,  d,  and  m  omit  "  the  Levites,"  and  it  seems  obvious  that 
the   word  is   in    fact   a   gloss   inserted   as    an   explanation  by 


Priests  and  Levites  253 

somebody  who  took  the  late  view  of  the  meaning  of  the  Law, 
and  therefore  found  the  text  difficult  to  understand.  Its 
omission  transforms  the  historical  import  of  the  passage, 
which  now  runs  : — 

"And  if  a  Levite  come  from  any  of  thy  gates  out  of  all  Israel, 
where  he  sojourneth,  and  come  with  all  the  desire  of  his  soul  unto 
the  place  which  the  Lord  shall  choose;  then  he  shall  minister  in 
the  name  of  the  Lord  his  God,  lil?;e  all  his  brethren  which  stand 
there  before  the  Lord.  They  shall  have  like  portions  to  eat,  be- 
side that  which  cometh  of  the  sale  of  his  patrimony." 
That  is  to  say,  a  Levite  fulfilling  the  necessary  conditions 
could  minister  like  all  his  brethren,  i.e.  the  sons  of  Aaron  — 
not,  as  the  glossator  thought,  in  an  inferior  ministry. 

To  this  must  be  added  Deuteronomy  xxi.  5 :  "  and  accord- 
ing to  their  word  shall  be  every  contention  and  every  blow  " ; 
and  the  passage  in  the  blessing  "  They  shall  teach  thy  judg- 
ments to  Jacob  and  thy  law  to  Israel:  they  shall  put  incense 
in  thy  nostrils  and  whole  burnt-offerings  on  thine  altar " 
(xxxiii.  10).  When  this  is  read  in  the  light  of  Deuteronomy 
xxi.  5  and  xxiv.  <S  (assigning  to  "  the  priests  the  Levites  "  the 
duty  of  teaching  the  leprosy  regulations),  and  taken  in  com- 
bination with  the  fact  that  the  teachings  of  P  require  for  their 
administration  a  numerous  and  scattered  priestly  caste,  it 
cannot  be  doubted  that  Deuteronomy  in  all  these  matters  sup- 
plements the  earlier  books.  The  joint  effect  of  all  these  pass- 
ages is  to  confer  on  the  Levites  the  power  of  exercising  most 
of  the  duties  of  the  sons  of  Aaron.  It  is,  however,  probable 
that  in  the  Mosaic  age  one  thing  would  be  understood  as  self- 
evident  which  is  not  expressed.  Priests,  so  far  as  we  know, 
were  always  consecrated.  In  Judges  we  read  of  Micah's 
"  filling  the  hand  "  first  of  his  son  and  then  of  the  Levite. 
Presumably  a  Levite  coming  under  this  law  would  have  to 
undergo  consecration  as  a  matter  of  course  before  approach- 
ing the  altar. 


254  Pcntatcuclml  Studies 

This  view  of  the  meaning  of  the  Law  is,  as  we  shall  see 
hereafter,  confirmed  by  all  the  data  of  the  earlier  and  later 
prophets.  But  for  the  hagiography,  the  glossators,  and  late 
Jewish  tradition  no  other  view  could  ever  have  obtained.  It 
however  leaves  one  seeming  discrepancy,  which  must  be  con- 
sidered further.  There  is  certainly  no  difficulty  in  under- 
standing that,  in  view  of  the  altered  circumstances,  Deuter- 
onomy should  have  modified  the  earlier  provisions  as  to  the 
Levites  which  had  been  given  for  the  period  of  wandering; 
but  trouble  is  made  by  the  language  of  Numbers  xvii.  5  (E.V. 
xvi.  40)  :  "  a  memorial  to  the  children  of  Israel  that  there 
shall  not  come  near  a  stranger  who  is  not  of  the  seed  of  Aaron 
to  burn  incense  before  the  Lord  :  and  that  he  be  not  like  Korah 
and  like  his  company,  as  the  Lord  spoke  to  him  by  the  hand  of 
Moses."  It  seems  as  if  the  burning  of  incense  alone  were  not  a 
priestly  but  a  high  priestly  prerogative.  In  Exodus  xxx.  1-9 
it  is  Aaron  who  is  to  burn  it  (cp.  Lev.  x. ;  xvi.  12  f. ;  Num. 
xvii.  11  f.  (xvi.  46).  Sometimes  incense  is  used  with  a  meal- 
offering,  but  that  is  different  from  the  burning  of  incense  by 
itself.  In  every  case  in  P  —  except  where  persons  are  con- 
sumed for  some  unlawful  use  of  incense  —  it  appears  that  the 
burning  is  to  be  done  by  the  high  priest  only,  and  then  —  as 
it  would  seem  —  as  a  measure  of  precaution  against  the  possi- 
ble results  of  a  theophany.  Indeed  it  seems  to  have  prophy- 
lactic powers.  The  story  of  Korah  is  in  agreement  with  this, 
for  the  "  priesthood  "  that  he  sought  was  obviously  the  leader- 
ship of  the  congregation,  not  such  a  position  as  that  occupied 
by  Aaron's  sons.  This  appears  clearly  from  Numbers  xvi.  3. 
In  view  of  the  language  of  this  verse,  it  is  not  too  much  to 
say  that  when  Korah  challenged  the  supremacy  of  Aaron  and 
Moses,  the  test  of  taking  censers  and  burning  incense  before 
the  Lord  was  probably  suggested  by  the  fact  that  this  was  a 


Priests  and  Levites  255 

high-priestly  prerogative  which  could  not  be  exercised  by  any 
lesser  dignitary.  Hence  Numbers  xvii.  5  cannot  be  quoted  as 
conflicting  with  Deuteronomy,  seeing  that  the  latter  book 
clearly  recognizes  "  the  priest "  as  holding  an  exceptional 
position.  Deuteronomy  xviii.  1-8  certainly  does  not  place 
any  Levite  in  the  position  of  the  high  priest. 

Before  proceeding  to  consider  more  particularly  the  resem- 
blances between  P  and  D,  it  may  be  well  to  emphasize  at  once 
a  characteristic  of  Hebrew  thought  and  methods  of  expression 
that  bears  very  closely  on  our  subject.  The  Semites  used 
terms  of  fatherhood  and  sonship  to  express  all  kinds  of  rela- 
tions that  would  be  differently  expressed  by  a  modern  West- 
ern. For  instance,  "  he  was  the  father  of  such  as  dwell  in 
tents  "  (Gen.  iv.  20)  would  not  be  understood  by  any  reader 
as  meaning  that  he  was  in  a  physical  sense  the  ancestor  of  all 
tent-dwellers.  In  the  case  of  the  Rechabites  the  founder  is 
the  "  father,"  the  members  of  the  sect  are  his  "  sons."  For 
this  reason  a  Hebrew  would  have  felt  no  difficulty  in  applying 
to  Levites  who  came  under  the  provisions  of  Deuteronomy 
xviii.  Q-S.  legislation  that  was  expressed  to  be  intended  for  the 
"  sons  "  of  Aaron.  The  fact  that  in  the  first  instance  it  was 
so  intended  for  those  who  were  in  fact  descended  from  Aaron 
would  not  cause  him  any  qualms.  Hebrew  usage  is  too  elas- 
tic, and  the  trouble  that  a  Western  mind  may  feel  on  this  sub- 
ject would  have  been  unintelligible  to  the  tribesmen  of  Moses. 

Once  the  points  we  have  striven  to  make  are  clearly  grasped, 
the  resemblance  between  Deuteronomy  and  P  becomes  very 
marked.  "  The  priest  that  standeth  to  minister  unto  the 
Lord  thy  God,"  in  Deuteronomy  xvii.  12,  is  no  other  than  the 
successor  of  Aaron.  The  Levites  are  as  in  P  —  but  in  Deu- 
teronomy fresh  provision  is  made  for  them  in  view  of  the  ap- 
proaching conquest.     In  both  they  have  no  tribal  inheritance, 


256  Pentatcnchal  Studies 

yet  Deuteronomy  xviii.  8  speaks  of  his  "  patrimony."  Two 
explanations  have  been  sug-gested  by  those  who  wish  if  possi- 
ble to  avoid  the  natural  inference  that  this  is  an  allusion  to  the 
Levitical  cities.  It  is  said  that  the  phrase  may  refer  to  some 
sacrificial  dues.  This  overlooks  the  fact  that  the  centralizing- 
ordinances  of  Deuteronomy  leave  no  room  for  any  local 
priestly  sacrifices,  and  also  the  obvious  impossibility  of  a 
priest's  selling  aught  that  had  come  to  him  as  a  sacred  due. 
It  is  also  said  that  this  may  refer  to  real  property.  Undoubt- 
edly it  does ;  but  then,  if  Deuteronomy  recognizes  real  prop- 
erty in  spite  of  the  non-possession  of  a  tribal  lot,  the  argument 
against  its  recognition  of  the  Levitical  cities  is  gone.  They 
were  cities  that  could  be  owned  by  members  of  a  tribe  that  had 
no  inheritance  like  its  peers. 

The  resemblance  between  P's  local  rites  for  leprosy  in  a 
house  and  D's  local  rites  in  the  case  of  a  man  found  slain  has 
already  been  indicated,  and  it  has  been  shown  that  the  ulti- 
mate recognition  of  an  extensive  and  scattered  priesthood  is 
necessitated  by  the  laws  of  P.  Both  documents  recognize 
leprosy  laws  locally  administered  by  a  priesthood,  the  Levit- 
ical carrying  of  the  Ark,  and  the  separation  of  Levi  for  a 
sacred  ministry.  The  seeming  discrepancy  between  the  pas- 
sage in  Numbers  that  threatens  death  if  the  Levites  approach 
the  altar  and  the  new  provisions  of  Deuteronomy  xviii.  is  nat- 
urally explained  partly  by  the  new  enactment  itself,  but  partly 
also  by  the  probability  that  Levites  performing  priestly  func- 
tions at  the  religious  capital  would  first  undergo  consecration. 

There  remains  one  point  of  difiference  between  Deuteron- 
omy and  P.  The  former  recognizes  a  Levitical  right  of  bless- 
ing which  the  latter  assigns  to  Aaron  and  his  sons.  The 
passage  relating  to  the  priestly  blessing  is  at  present  mis- 
placed.    Numbers  vi.  22-27  contains  the  command  to  bless, 


Priests  and  Lcvitcs  257 

but  in  point  of  fact  we  find  Aaron  blessing-  the  people  at  his 
consecration  (Lev.  ix.  22).  As  the  later  chapter  relates  the 
fulfilment  of  commands  given  on  Mount  Sinai,  it  would  seem 
that  Numbers  vi.  22-27  must  have  been  given  at  the  same 
time  —  before  the  separation  of  Levi.  What  has  already  been 
said  about  the  characteristics  of  Hebrew  modes  of  expression 
would  apply  here  too.  The  difficulty  therefore  vanishes.  On 
the  other  hand  it  may  be  open  to  question  whether  there  is  not 
a  lacuna  in  the  text  of  Exodus  or  Numbers,  giving  some  fur- 
ther account  of  the  duties  and  privileges  of  the  Levites ;  but 
this  must  remain  doubtful.  It  may  be  that  the  general  words 
in  Numbers  as  to  the  duties  of  the  Levites  cover  everything 
that  is  necessary.  In  Deuteronomy  xxvii.  9,  etc.,  we  find 
Moses  and  the  priests  the  Levites  speaking  to  all  Israel.  Pre- 
sumably they  repeated  what  he  said.  If  so,  they  may  have 
repeated  the  blessing  on  occasions  when  Aaron  blessed  the 
people.  But  on  points  like  this  no  certainty  is  possible.  And 
assuredly  when  the  discrepancies  between  Deuteronomy  and 
the  earlier  books  resolve  themselves  into  small  and  doubtful 
minutioe  of  this  kind.  Mosaic  authenticity  is  not  in  danger.^ 

PRIESTS    AND    LEVITES    FROM    MOSES    TO    MALACHI 

The  data  of  the  book  of  Joshua  add  nothing  fresh  to  our 
information.  This  book,  like  all  the  other  prophetical  books, 
entirely  agrees  with  the  interpretation  of  the  Pentateuchal 
laws  that  has  just  been  given.  Phrases  like  "  the  priests  the 
bearers  of  the  ark  of  the  covenant  "  alternate  with  such  ex- 
pressions as  "  the  priests,  the  Levites,  bearers  of  the  ark  of 
the  covenant  of  the  Lord."     In  many  places  the  text  is  in  an 

^  It  is  very  noteworthy  that  in  2  Chronicles  xxx.  27  we  read : 
"And  the  priests,  the  Levites  [several  MSS.  and  versions  "  and  the 
Levites "]  arose  and  blessed  the  people."  The  Levites  are  here 
conceived  as  uttering  the  priestly  blessing. 


258  Pentatcuchal  Studies 

uncertain  condition,  but  there  is  no  sign  that  the  original  MS. 
in  any  way  conflicted  with  the  view  taken  of  the  Pentateuchal 
laws.  One  phrase  deserves  especial  notice,  for  its  complete 
confirmation  of  what  has  been  said.  In  xviii.  7  we  read :  "  for 
the  Levites  have  no  portion  in  your  midst ;  for  the  priesthood 
of  the  Lord  is  his  inheritance."  Dr.  Carpenter  is  much  puz- 
zled and  assigns  the  verse  to  a  priestly  redactor  of  all  con- 
ceivable figments !  How  on  his  principles  could  a  priestly 
writer  ascribe  the  priesthood  to  the  Levites? 

The  only  other  point  of  interest  is  the  fact  that  in  their 
division  of  Joshua  into  sources  the  critics  are  compelled  to 
represent  J  and  E  and  P  and  a  Deuteronomic  writer  as  all 
entertaining  precisely  the  same  conception  —  though  on  crit- 
ical principles  they  ought  to  be  at  hopeless  variance  —  and 
curiously  enough  this  conception  is  precisely  the  conception  I 
have  derived  from  the  Pentateuch.  For  example,  in  iii.  8,  Ps 
speaks  of  "  the  priests  that  bear  the  ark "  —  not,  be  it  ob- 
served, the  Levites.  J  does  the  same  in  verses  13  and  17,  E 
in  verse  14,  and  a  Deuteronomic  redactor  in  iv.  9  and  other 
verses.  After  all,  it  seems  simpler  to  suppose  that  the  Penta- 
teuch means  what  it  says  and  was  so  understood  until  after 
the  exile,  than  to  indulge  in  such  speculations  as  these. 

The  story  of  Jonathan  the  grandson  of  Moses  is  the  only 
important  contribution  of  the  book  of  Judges  to  our  present 
topic.  "'  Now  I  know  that  the  Lord  will  bless  me,  since  I  have 
a  Levite  as  priest"  (xvii.  13),  clearly  testifies  to  the  sacred 
character  of  the  tribe  soon  after  the  death  of  Moses.  The 
textual  question  on  this  narrative  has  already  been  discussed: 
it  remains  only  to  notice  that  the  position  of  the  Levites  as 
well  as  their  character  corresponds  with  the  data  of  the  Penta- 
teuch. The  idolatry  and  the  separate  shrine  are  regarded  as 
breaches  of  the  Law,  —  as  of  course  they  were.     "  In  those 


Priests  Olid  Levilcs  251) 

days  there  was  no  king  in  Israel,  every  man  did  that  which 
was  right  in  his  own  eyes."  This  significant  comment  was 
perhaps  meant  to  be  enforced  by  the  narrative  of  the  theft  of 
Micah's  image  —  an  event  that  would  hardly  enhance  the 
prestige  of  such  "  gods  "  in  the  minds  of  the  readers. 

The  narratives  of  the  books  of  Samuel  and  the  early  chap- 
ters of  Kings  have  been  much  commented  on  by  the  Chron- 
icler and  the  critics.  As  the  statements  of  the  Chronicler  can- 
not fairly  be  reconciled  with  the  older  sources  for  this  period, 
it  will  be  well  to  leave  them  out  of  account. 

The  difficulties  that  have  been  found  in  the  history  of  the 
age  of  Samuel  are  diverse  in  nature  and  due  to  a  variety  of 
causes.  Some  of  them  need  not  detain  us  long.  It  is  claimed 
that  sacrifice  is  ofifered  without  the  intervention  of  a  priest.^ 
This  is  explained  by  the  distinction  between  customary  lay 
offerings  and  statutory  individual  offerings  —  a  distinction 
that,  as  I  have  shown  elsewhere,-  accounts  for  many  features 
that  give  difficulty.  Another  point  that  need  not  detain  us 
long  is  the  blessing  of  the  people  by  the  kings  (e.g.  2  Sam. 
vi.  18).  The  critics  choose  to  claim  that  they  used  the  priestly 
benediction.  There  is  not  the  least  evidence  of  this.  Indeed 
in  this  passage  we  are  told  that  David  blessed  the  people  in 
the  name  of  the  Lord  of  hosts.  If  this  is  to  be  taken  in  its 
most  literal  sense,  he  cannot  have  employed  the  priestly  bene- 
diction, for  the  expression  "  Lord  of  hosts  "  does  not  occur  in 

^  See,  e.g.,  Wellhausen,  Prolegomena,  p.  128 ;  "  Sacrifice  is  in  two 
instances  offered,  by  Gideon  and  Manoah ;  but  in  neitlier  case  is  a 
priest  held  to  be  necessary.  .  .  .  Until  the  ciiltus  has  become  in  some 
measure  centralised  the  prifests  have  no  locus  standi;  for  when 
each  man  sacrifices  for  himself  and  his  household,  upon  an  altar 
which  he  improvises  as  best  he  can  for  the  passing  need,  where  is 
the  occasion  for  people  whose  professional  and  essential  function 
is  that  of  sacrificing  for  others?" 

=  Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism,  chapter  vi.  =  Bibliotheca  Sa- 
cra, October,   1909. 


2G0  Pentatcnchal  Studies 

it.  But,,  putting-  this  aside,  can  anything  be  more  absurd  than 
this  theory?  Blessing  was  a  common  and  graceful  act  among 
the  ancient  Hebrews.  We  meet  with  many  instances.  Per- 
haps the  most  striking  is  Jacob's  "  in  thee  shall  Israel  bless," 
etc.,  for  this  passage  demonstrates  the  prevalence  of  the  cus- 
tom. In  this  very  chapter  we  read,  two  verses  later,  that 
David  returned  to  bless  his  household  (vi.  20).  Would  any- 
body assume  that  he  used  the  priestly  blessing?  And  if  it  be 
admitted  that  there  is  no  reason  to  suppose  that  this  is  the 
priestly  blessing,  why  should  we  make  such  an  assumption 
when  we  read  of  David's  blessing  his  people?  What  can  be 
more  natural  or  indeed  more  universal  than  that  a  king  should 
bless  his  people?  There  is  certainly  nothing  here  to  point  to 
any  usurpation  of  priestly  functions.  The  same  holds  good 
with  even  more  force  of  Solomon,  since  in  his  case  we  have 
the  words  of  a  blessing  in  1  Kings  viii.  56  fif. 

More  important  is  the  argument  based  on  three  passages 
that  appear  to  show  that  non-Levitical  persons  were  priests. 
In  each  case  the  textual  evidence  proves  that  there  is  corrup- 
tion. The  first  of  these  is  2  Samuel  viii.  18.  The  Massoretic 
text  has  "  and  the  sons  of  David  were  CjnD,  i.e.  priests."  It 
is  curious,  if  this  is  the  case,  that  the  statement  does  not  fol- 
low 17a,  where  we  are  told  that  Zadok  and  Abiathar  were 
priests ;  but  that  is  not  the  only  suspicious  circumstance.  The 
Chronicler  (1  Chron.  xviii.  17)  paraphrases  "first  to  the  hand 
of  the  king,"  which  looks  as  if  they  held  some  office.  Now 
this  is  confirmed  by  the  LXX,  which  here  reads  aularchs  — 
a  word  we  might  suitably  render  "  chamberlains."  It  has 
been  suggested  that  this  might  be  a  paraphrase,  but  another 
passage  proves  that  it  represents  a  genuine  Hebrew  variant. 
In  1  Kings  ii.  some  of  our  Septuagintal  authorities  have 
preserved  a  list  of  officers  that  is  not  found  in  the  Hebrew. 


Priests  and  Lcvitcs  261 

It  appears  that  at  that  time  Benaiah  son  of  Jehoiada  was 
eVt  T^s  av\ap)(^La<i  Kal  iirl  rov  irXivdeiov,  "  over  the  aularchy 
and  over  the  brickmaking  "  (LXX,  3  Kingdoms  ii.  4r)h).  It  is 
not  possible  to  claim  that  he  was  "  over  the  priesthood  and  over 
the  brickmaking,"  and  it  therefore  appears  that  the  Septuagintal 
aularc4is  does  in  fact  represent  some  secular  Hebrew  office. 
Further,  the  notes  on  2  Samuel  viii.  18  in  Field's  Hexapla  prove 
corruption.  According  to  one  of  these,  Symmachus  ^  read 
o-xo\d^ovr€^,  which  means  "  at  leisure."  This  makes  no  sense, 
but  it  cannot  possibly  be  a  rendering  of  D^JHS.  and  proves  that 
this  translator  knew  a  different  text.  A  footnote  quotes  a 
scholiast  as  saying  that  Theodotion  had  Tr]v  KardaTacnv 
exovT€<i  T?}?  ^a(TL\iK7J<i  olKLa<i,  while  in  Chronicles  he  rendered 
Sofxea-TiKot.  Both  these  point  to  a  Hebrew  word  meaning 
"  chamberlains,"  and  suggest  that  our  present  text  of  Chron- 
icles is  a  gloss  to  the  rare  earlier  word  which  was  used  by  the 
Chronicler  as  well  as  in  Samuel.  For  these  reasons  it  appears 
certain  that  the  Hebrew  is  corrupt.  Possibly,  as  Hitzig  and 
Cheyne  have  conjectured,^  we  should  read  Q'^^D  for  D^jhd,  com- 
paring, for  this  use  of  the  word,  Isaiah  xxii.  15. 

The  next  passage  is  2  Samuel  xx.  26 :  "  and  also  Ira  the 
Jairite  was  priest  to  David."  That  we  are  dealing  in  this  case 
with  a  genuine  priest  is  proved  by  the  phrase  "  and  also  "  at- 
taching to  the  mention  of  the  priests  in  the  preceding  verse. 
The  Syriac,  however,  instead  of  '^^;^"I.  "  the  Jairite,"  has  '"^n^n, 
"  the  Jattirite  "  ;  and  this  is  confirmed  by  the  Lucianic  LXX, 
vv'hich  had  the  same  letters,  and  by  xxiii.  38.  Jattir  was  a 
priestly  city  (Josh.  xxi.  14),  so  that  this  notice  is  not  remark- 
able. 

^  According  to  another  note,  Symmachus  read  "  priests,"  but  if 
this  latter  note  is  correct,  it  only  means  that  o-xoXdfoiTes  was  the 
reading  of  some  other  translator. 

^See  the  Expositor   (5th  'Series),  vol.  ix.    (1899)    pp.  453^57. 


262  Penfateuchal  Studies 

Lastly,  we  come  to  1  Kings  iv.  5.  The  Massoretic  text  tells 
us  thatli^fj  "Zabud"  (there  is  a  variant  '^i^f,"  Zachur  ")  son 
of  Nathan  was  "l^^i^  ^y"i  1^3,  "  priest,  friend  of  the  king." 
Origen  did  not  find  the  word  "  priest  "  as  part  of  the  Septua- 
gintal  text,  and  added  it  under  an  asterisk.  Thus  the  ques- 
tion arises,  whether  ]^^  is  original,  or  has  resulted  •  from 
dittography  of  the  preceding-  word  jn:,  Nathan.  Here  again 
the  Septuagintal  list  of  1  Kings  ii.  throws  light  on  the  subject, 
for  we  learn  from  it  that  the  son  of  Nathan  was,  at  the  time 
to  which  the  list  refers,  the  occupant  of  another  secular  office 
—  that  of  counselor  (LXX,  3  Kingdoms  ii.  46h;  cp.  Lucian's 
text  of  ii.  34).  This  had  been  Ahitophel's  title  (2  Sam.  xv. 
12,  etc.)  ;  while  Hushai  the  Archite,  w^hose  functions  appear 
to  have  been  similar,  bore  the  official  style  of  "  king's  friend  " 
(see  especially  1  Chron.  xxvii.  33  f.,  apparently  taken  from  an 
old  source).  There  can  therefore  be  no  doubt  that  there  in  fact 
existed  a  secular  office  of  "  king's  friend,"  and  that  the  LXX 
is  right  in  making  this  the  office  filled  by  Nathan's  son,  either 
before  or  after  his  occupancy  of  the  kindred  secular  office  of 
"  king's  counselor."  Hence  no  support  can  be  derived  from 
these  passages  for  a  legitimate  non-Levitical  priesthood. 

Then  it  is  urged  that  there  were  dealings  with  the  Ark  that 
are  not  in  accordance  with  the  Law.  When  the  curtain  first 
rises  on  the  age  of  Samuel  we  find  the  Ark  exactly  where  we 
should  expect  it  to  be,  viz.  at  Shiloh.  That  was  where  it  was 
located  in  Joshua  xviii.  1,  and  that  was  where,  in  the  absence 
of  any  particular  reason  to  the  contrary,  it  would  presumably 
remain.  We  find  Eli  and  his  sons  in  charge  of  it.  The  book 
of  Samuel  does  not  provide  us  with  a  genealogy  of  Eli,  but 
from  1  Samuel  ii.  27  we  learn  that  he  was  descended  from 
Aaron.  This  part  of  the  narrative  is  therefore  in  order  (apart 
from  the  question  of  Samuel  to  be  considered  hereafter).     It 


Priests  and  Lcvitcs  263 

appears  that  the  Ark  did  not  usually  go  to  war  with  the 
forces  of  Israel,  for  it  was  not  till  after  a  defeat  that  it  was 
removed  from  Shiloh  to  take  its  part  in  a  campaign  against 
the  Philistines.  It  \vas  then  taken  to  the  camp  under  the 
charge  of  two  sons  of  Eli.  So  far  everything  is  in  accordance 
with  the  Law.  It  is  sometimes  said  that  non-Aaronic  Levites 
ought  to  have  carried  the  Ark,  but  this  will  not  bear  investi- 
gation. As  we  have  seen,  these  arrangements  were  made  for 
the  desert  period.  Even  then  there  is  no  reason  to  suppose 
that  priests  could  not  bear  the  Ark.  On  the  contrary,  they 
were  holier  than  Levites  and  were  allowed  to  do  things  that 
were  not  permitted  to  the  latter.  Thus  they  had  to  cover  up 
the  Ark  and  make  it  ready  for  its  journey  before  the  Levites 
were  allowed  to  come  near  it.  Probably  the  only  reason  why 
the  porterage  of  the  Ark  was  assigned  to  Levites  was  the 
smallness  of  the  number  of  priests  available.  At  the  time  the 
arrangements  were  made  only  Aaron  and  his  two  sons  appear 
to  have  been  of  an  age  for  any  service,  and  Aaron  himself  was 
clearly  too  old  to  execute  this  duty.  Moreover  it  appears  from 
the  narrative  that  his  two  sons  had  a  large  amount  of  other 
work  to  perform.  Hence  probably  the  choice  of  Levites ;  but, 
as  this  is  a  case  of  the  work  being  done  by  less  holy  persons, 
it  is  clear  that  there  would  be  nothing  to  prevent  descendants 
of  Aaron  from  carrying  the  Ark;  and  of  course,  if  the  view 
taken  above  of  the  provisions  of  Deuteronomy  be  correct,  the 
two  classes  had  almost  been  fused  into  one. 

A  question,  however,  arises  on  the  part  played  by  Samuel  in 
these  opening  chapters  of  the  first  book  called  by  his  name. 
Vowed  by  his  mother  to  God,  he  is  brought  to  Shiloh  to  serve 
Eli.  Wellhausen  goes  so  far  as  to  write :  "  Samuel,  who  is 
not  a  member  of  the  family,  is  nevertheless  adopted  as  a 
priest"    (p.   130;  cf.  p.   136).     The  details   of  the  narrative 


264  Pentatcuchal  Studies 

that  are  inconvenient  from  the  Wellhausen  point  of  view  are 
ignored.  In  point  of  fact  he  was  brought  soon  after  he  had 
been  weaned.  He  may  have  been  three  or  even  as  much  as 
four  years  old  at  the  time.^  It  would  be  interesting  to  know 
what  priestly  functions  the  boy  can  be  supposed  to  have 
discharged  at  this  mature  age.  Of  course  he  grew  older,  but 
the  little  cloak  annually  brought  by  his  mother  (ii.  19)  shows 
clearly  that  the  whole  narrative  relates  to  his  boyhood.  When 
we  read  (ii.  18)  that  he  ministered  before  the  Lord,  being  a 
child,  girded  with  a  linen  ephod,  we  call  to  mind  an  attractive 
picture.  But  that  does  not  exempt  us  from  the  duty  of  ap- 
plying a  little  common  sense  to  the  narrative.  It  stands  to 
reason  that  the  child  can  have  performed  no  priestly  duties 
whatever,  though  doubtless  he  ran  errands  and  performed 
odd  jobs  for  Eli  as  a  kind  of  page.  Every  reader  must  be 
familiar  with  pages  and  office  boys,  but  nobody  in  our  own 
day  hearing  that  a  boy  served  in  the  consulting-room  of  a 
physician  would  assume  that  he  performed  a  d'octor's  services. 
The  only  positive  information  we  have  as  to  Samuel's  func- 
tions is  to  the  effect  that  he  slept  in  some  part  of  the  building 
(called  a  temple)  where  the  Ark  was,  and  opened  the  doors  in 
the  morning  (iii.  15).  To  say,  as  Wellhausen  does,  that  he 
sleeps  "  beside  the  ark  "  (p.  131),  or  "  in  the  inner  portion  of 
the  temple  beside  the  ark  of  the  covenant"  (p.  130),  is  to 
read  into  the  narrative  something  that  simply  is  not  there. 
What  we  are  told  is  that  he  slept  in  the  temple  in  which  the 
Ark  was.  Unlike  the  wilderness  tent,  this  had  door-valves 
which  had  to  be  opened  from  inside.  As  the  structure  of  this 
house  of  the  Lord  was  entirely  different  from  an  erection  of 
planks  and  curtains,  it  seems  probable  that  there  was  some 
accommodation  within  its  precincts  where  the  boy  porter 
*  See  Murray's  Illustrated  Bible  Dictionary,  p.  280a. 


Priests  and  Lcvites  265 

could  sleep  without  penetrating  to  any  place  where  he  could 
not  lawfully  be.  The  later  temples  certainly  had  plenty  of 
chambers  for  various  purposes,  and  it  is  natural  to  infer  that 
there  was  such  a  chamber  or  recess  particularly  provided  for 
the  porter  to  which  the  rays  of  "  the  lamp  of  God  "  could 
penetrate.  Samuel  may  have  been  a  Levite,  as  the  Chronicler 
says,  or  again  the  vow  made  by  the  mother  and  the  solemn 
surrender  to  God  may  have  had  the  effect  of  consecrating  him 
so  that  he  could  perform  duties  that  could  not  be  discharged 
by  a  layman ;  but  these  scanty  notices  do  not  necessarily  prove 
anything  of  the  sort.  It  is  more  probable  that  the  internal 
arrangements  of  the  Temple  were  such  as  to  provide  for  the 
presence  of  a  priestly  servant  as  lay  porter.  The  opening  of 
doors  is  not  a  very  exalted  function. 

When  the  Ark  came  back  from  the  Philistines  we  read  of 
various  transactions  that  require  consideration,  but  before 
turning  to  them  I  must  bring  out  one  point.  So  far  as  we 
know,  the  Ark  had  always  been  under  the  custody  of  the 
house  of  Aaron  till  the  death  of  Hophni  and  Phineas.  When 
David  brought  it  up  to  Jerusalem  it  was  under  the  charge  of 
his  two  official  priests  Zadok  and  Abiathar,  and  from  that 
time  forward  till  the  exile  it  was  always  under  the  care  of 
the  priests  of  Jerusalem.  Abiathar  was  a  descendant  of  Eli 
and  therefore  of  Aaron.  Hence  the  only  period  of  irregu- 
larity, if  there  in  fact  was  irregularity,  is  a  period  of  about 
twenty  years  (1  Sam.  vii.  2).  It  is  important  to  emphasize 
this ;  because,  putting  things  at  the  very  best  for  the  Well- 
hausen  theory,  we  should  have  to  say  that  twenty  years  of 
irregularity  at  a  time  of  great  national  diff.culty  could  over- 
rule the  consistent  and  unquestioned  practice  of  all  the  rest 
of  history,  extending  over  some  six  or  seven  hundred  years. 


2GG  Penfofenchal  Studies 

Whether  there  was  irregularity,  and  if  so,  how  much,  is  the 
question  to  be  considered. 

In  1  Samuel  vi.  we  read  that  the  cart  bearing  the  Ark  came 
to  the  field  of  Joshua  of  Beth-shemesh  and  stood  there.  Then 
comes  a  passage  that  presents  difficulties.  It  reads  "  and  there 
was  there  a  great  stone,  and  they  split  the  wood  of  the  cart, 
and  the  kine  they  offered  as  a  burnt-offering  to  the  Lord  " 
(ver.  14).  A  pause  should  be  made  here  to  note  the  fact  that 
this  narrative  does  not  explain  what  happened  to  the  Ark. 
If  the  Ark  was  transferred  to  the  stone,  as  we  should  expect, 
it  seems  curious  that  a  statement  to  that  effect  does  not  appear 
before  we  are  told  of  the  breaking  up  of  the  cart,  and  of  the 
offering  of  the  men  of  Beth-shemesh.  The  next  verse  draws 
from  Wellhausen  the  following  comment:  "After  they  [sc. 
the  inhabitants  of  Beth-shemesh]  have  finished,  the  Levites 
come  up  (ver.  15)  (in  the  pluperfect  tense)  and  proceed  as 
if  nothing  had  happened,  lift  the  ark  from  the  now  no  longer 
existent  cart,  and  set  it  upon  the  stone  on  which  the  sacrifice 
is  already  burning ;  —  of  course  only  in  order  to  fulfil  the 
law,  the  demands  of  which  have  been  completely  ignored  in 
the  original  narrative"  (p.  128).  That  the  present  text  is 
impossible  may  be  conceded  at  once ;  at  the  same  time  the 
difficulty  of  the  preceding  verse  does  not  favor  the  hypothesis 
that  verse  15  is  a  mere  gloss.  It  is  not  suggested  that  there  is 
any  evidence  for  expelling  this  verse  from  the  text.  It  may 
be  a  gloss,  but  it  seems  much  more  probable  that  the  second 
half  of  verse  ]4  has  accidentally  suffered  transposition. 

It  may  be  that  the  original  text  of  these  two  verses  ran  as 

follows : — ■ 

"  14a  And  the  cart  came  into  the  field  of  Joshua  the  Beth- 
shemlte,  and  stood  there,  and  there  was  there  a  great  stone ;  15a 
And  the  Levites  took  down  the  ark  of  the  Lord,  and  the  coffer  that 
was  with  it,  wherein  the  jewels  of  gold  were,  and  put  them  on  the 


Priests  and  Lcvitcs  267 

great  stone,  14b  and  clave  the  wood  of  the  cart  and  the  kine  they 
offered  up  for  a  burnt-offering  unto  the  Lokd;  15b  and  the  men  of 
Beth-shemesh  offered  burnt-offerings  and  sacrificed  sacrifices  the 
same  day  to  the  Lord." 

It  will  be  seen  that  this  is  by  far  the  least  violent  expedient 
for  dealing  with  the  text,  and  makes  perfect  sense.  As  Beth- 
shemesh  was  a  L.evitical  city,  the  presence  of  Levites  causes 
no  astonishment :  and  we  get  rid  of  the  curious  narrative  by 
which  the  cart  is  split  up  and  the  cattle  offered  without  any 
notice  being  taken  of  the  Ark.  The  Wellhausen  treatment  of 
this  passage  leaves  an  extraordinarily  strange  narrative  in 
verse  14,  and  destroys  the  history  that  we  have,  in  the  inter- 
ests of  a  theory.  That  is  the  first  irregularity  charged  in  the 
history  of  this  period.  Even  if  Wellhausen  were  right  as  to 
the  text  —  and  it  must  be  remembered  that  there  is  no  tittle 
of  evidence  to  that  effect  —  the  circumstances  of  the  return 
of  the  Ark  were  so  exceptional  that  no  general  inference 
could  be  drawn  from  the  occurrence. 

The  next  episode  is  one  on  which  the  Wellhausen  critics 
do  not  love  to  dwell.  It  appears  that  the  men  of  Beth- 
shemesh  treated  the  Ark  irreverently,  and  were  punished 
quite  as  severely  as  would  have  happened  in  P.  The  repre- 
sentation of  the  Ark  is  here  exactly  the  same  as  in  the  Law, 
and  for  this  reason  we  hear  very  little  of  it  from  the  crit- 
ics. Then  the  men  of  Beth-shemesh  sent  to  Kiriath-jearim. 
The  men  of  that  place  came  and  fetched  the  Ark,  and 
they  brought  it  "  to  the  house  of  Abinadab  in  the  Gibeah 
[hill],  and  Eleazar  his  son  they  sanctified  to  guard  the  Ark 
of  the  Lord''  (vii.  1).  There  it  remained  for  twenty  years, 
and  we  hear  nothing  further  of  it  till  David  fetches  it  (in 
2  Sam.  vi.).  On  this,  two  points  are  made:  (1)  that  the  Ark 
remained  for  twenty  years  in  the  house  of  a  private  individ- 
ual;  and    (2")    that  somebody  who  was  not   a  descendant  of 


268  Pentatciichal  Studies 

Aaron  was  here  sanctified  as  its  keeper.  The  first  point  is 
not  of  much  consequence.  The  building  of  a  suitable  temple 
was  not  something  that  could  be  improvised  in  great  haste  at 
a  time  of  political  confusion.  The  former  abode  of  the  Ark 
had  (as  appears  from  Jer.  vii.  13,  14;  xxvi.  6,  9)  been  de- 
stroyed —  presumably  by  the  Philistines  —  and  it  is  probable, 
if  we  discard  the  data  of  Chronicles,  that  the  Mosaic  tent  or 
what  remained  of  it  had  perished.  The  present  narrative  of 
1  Kings  viii.  4  appears  to  refer  to  David's  tent.  If  it  does 
not,  then  the  IMosaic  Tent  of  Meeting  still  existed  but,  for 
some  reason,  was  not  available  at  Kiriath-jearim. 

The  seat  of  the  Ark  appears,  however,  to  have  had  con- 
siderable importance  even  in  these  twenty  years.  Our  pres- 
ent Hebrew  text  presents  us  with  at  least  three  place-names 
that  are  almost  identical :  i--\  Geha,  ^V2:,  Giheah,  'py^J-  Gibe  on. 
In  addition  to  this,  the  word  ny23,  Giheah,  means  "  hill,"  and 
we  get  the  Gibeah  of  Kinath-jearim.  Further  we  find  ex- 
pressions like  "  Gibeah  of  God,"  "  Gibeah  of  Saul,"  etc.  It 
is  obvious  that  textual  errors  would  necessarily  arise  in  deal- 
ing with  words  so  much  alike,  and  differences  between  the 
Massoretic  text  and  the  \''ersions  show  us  that  this  was  in 
fact  the  case.  The  matter  is  further  complicated  by  the  close 
geographical  proximity  of  all  these  places:  Kiriath-jearim 
was  one  of  the  cities  of  the  Gibeonites  (Josh.  ix.  17)  ;  it  fol- 
lows that  its  Gibeah  must  have  been  near  Gibeon.  According 
to  the  Massoretic  text  of  Isaiah  x.  29,  Geba  and  Gibeah  of 
Saul  were  near  each  other,  but  the  names  are  textually  doubt- 
ful. Geba  (Josh,  xviii.  24),  Gibeon  (ver.  25),  and  the  Gibeah 
of  Kiriath-jearim  (ver.  28)  were,  according  to  the  Masso- 
retic text,  all  in  the  territory  of  Benjamin.     Gibeon  and  Geba 


Priests  and  Lcvitcs  2G9 

were  both  priestly  cities  (xxi.  17).  Geba,  Gibeah,  and  Gibeon 
were  all  near  Ramah.^ 

When  the  facts  are  examined,  one  point  emerges  from  the 
tangle  with  considerable  clearness.  It  is  plain  that  the  Gibeah 
of  God  in  1  Samuel  x.  5  must  be  the  same  place  as  that  which 
is  called  Geba  in  the  Massoretic  text  of  xiii.  3,  where  the  LXX 
and  Targum  have  Gibeah.  There  cannot  have  been  two 
places  of  almost  the  same  name  in  Benjamin,  both  containing  a 
^'VJ  (rendered  by  the  R.V.  "garrison")  of  Philistines.  The 
importance  of  this  identification  is  considerable.  The  hill  or 
Gibeah  of  God  can  hardly  have  been  anything  but  the  Gibeah 
of  Kiriath-jearim  in  Benjamin,  where  was  the  Ark  of  God. 
Other  identifications  may  be  correct :  but  this  one  alone  proves 
that  in  the  view  of  the  Philistines  considerable  importance 
attached  to  the  seat  of  the  Ark.  We  learn  too  from  1  Sam- 
uel x.  that  there  was  a  high  place  there.  Obviously,  even 
during  these  twenty  years,  the  place  where  the  Ark  was,  con- 
tinued to  preserve  no  small  measure  of  religious  and  political 
consequence. 

The  second  point  is  more  serious  —  if  any  point  based  on 
such  fragmentary  information  can  be  deemed  to  be  serious. 
Who  Abinadab  was  we  do  not  know,  except  that  he  lived  on 
the  Gibeah  or  hill  of  Kiriath-jearim.  Dr.  H.  A.  Poels,  a  pupil 
of  Professor  Van  Hoonacker's,  has  devoted  a  good  deal  of 
work  to  the  subject,  and  published  two  monographs  on  the 
seat  of  the  Ark  in  these  narratives.  Many  of  his  conclusions 
appear  to  me  untenable,  yet  in  dealing  with  these  questions  I 
have  profited  by  his  labors.  A  very  ingenious  conjecture  of 
his  should  be  m.entioned  here,  as  it  may  convey  to  some 
minds  the  conviction  that  it  has  failed  to  bring  to  me.  He 
thinks  —  and  Professor  Van  Hoonacker  supports  him  with 
^  Poels,  Le  Sanctuaire  de  Kirjath-jearim,  p.  41. 


270  Pcntatcuchal  Studies 

the  weight  of  his  authority  —  that  for  1J3  -iry';^?  nxi,  "  and  Elea- 
zar  his  son,"  we  should  read  "^^vba  'n  nN%  "  and  the  sons  of 
Eleazar."  The  change  is  very  slight  indeed  and  may  be  cor- 
rect. If  it  be,  there  is  an  end  of  the  critical  case  on  this  point. 
It  is,  however,  a  mere  conjecture,  and  personally  I  see  no  suf- 
ficient reason  for  altering  the  present  text.  It  is  quite  true 
that  this  Eleazar  is  not  mentioned  as  one  of  the  sons  of  Abi- 
nadab  when  the  Ark  leaves  the  Gibeah :  but  he  may  have  died 
in  the  intervening  twenty  years.  In  any  case  the  data  are  too 
scanty  for  any  certain  inference. 

For,  after  all,  what  does  the  whole  difficulty  amount  to? 
Eleazar,  son  of  Abinadab,  is  consecrated  to  guard  the  Ark. 
Who  Abinadab  was  we  do  not  know.  Dr.  Poels  connects 
him  with  the  family  of  Saul,  but  on  insufficient  evidence.  He 
may  have  been  of  priestly  descent.  Nor  again  do  we  know 
how  or  where  Eleazar  guarded  the  Ark.  The  functions  he 
discharged  may  have  been  such  as  could  be  performed  by  a 
person  of  lay  descent.  The  theory  that  he  slept  in  the  same 
chamber  with  it  is  unsupported  by  evidence  and  is  intrinsically 
improbable.  To  attempt  to  come  to  any  certain  conclusion 
on  this  half  verse  of  Samuel  is  to  seek  to  make  bricks  without 
straw. 

With  this  half  verse  our  difficulties  end.  The  narrative  of 
the  bringing  of  the  Ark  to  Jerusalem  is  far  simpler.  First, 
an  attempt  is  made  to  carry  the  Ark  on  a  new  cart.  Probably 
the  method  of  conveyance  was  suggested  in  part  at  least  by  the 
fact  that  it  was  in  this  way  that  the  Ark  had  returned  from 
the  Philistines.  Uzzah  accidentally  touches  it,  and  the  result 
that  we  should  have  expected  from  our  P  follows.  This  epi- 
sode, reinforcing  the  narrative  of  the  great  slaughter  in  the 
field  of  Beth-shemesh,  again  leads  me  to  think  that  the  guard- 
ianship of  the  Ark  by  Eleazar  cannot  have  consisted  in  any 


Priests  and  Lcvites  271 

very  intimate  association  with  it.  The  occurrence  inspired 
David  with  a  natural  fear,  and  the  Ark  was  promptly  deposited 
in  the  house  of  Obed-edom  the  Gittite.  Much  has  been  made 
of  this,  but  without  reason/  After  the  episodes  we  have 
noticed,  we  may  infer  with  perfect  certainty  that  Obed-edom 
and  all  his  family  took  very  good  care  not  to  approach  the 
chamber  where  the  Ark  was.  It  is  then  transported  to  Jeru- 
salem, but  the  method  of  carriage  is  changed.  "  When  the 
bearers  of  the  ark  of  the  Lord  had  gone  six  paces  "  is  the 
phrase  employed  (3  Sam.  vi.  13).  Here  we  have  a  reversion 
to  the  practice  of  carrying  the  Ark.  Why  ?  Surely  because 
it  was  known  that  this  was  the  old  practice,  and  events  had 
shown  that  the  new  method  was  not  safe.  We  are  not  told  in 
Samuel  who  bore  the  Ark,  but  we  are  entitled  to  assume  that 
this  task  was  discharged  by  duly  qualified  persons.  Thus  the 
only  real  question  on  the  whole  narrative  is  as  to  the  identity 
of  Eleazar  who  —  if  the  text  be  sound  —  discharged  functions 
which  in  the  wilderness  period  would  probably  have  been  per- 
formed by  priests  or  Levites.  Our  materials  do  not  enable  us 
to  say  definitely  whether  his  action  was  lawful. 

There  is  one  important  point  made  by  the  critics  on  the  his- 
tory of  this  period  which  appears  to  me  to  be  in  the  main 
sound.  The  facts  about  the  descent  of  Zadok  set  forth  in  the 
second  division  of  the  Hebrew  canon  do  not  agree  with  the 
statements  of  the  Hagiography,  and  there  can  be  no  doubt 
which  is  entitled  to  the  preference.  We  have  seen  that  in 
Deuteronomy  Moses  enacted  that  Levites  going  to  the  central 
sanctuary  were  to  have  a  position  similar  to  that  of  the  de- 
scendants of  Aaron.    In  the  post-Mosaic  age  we  find  a  Leviti- 

^  Wellhausen's  statement  that  David  made  Obed-edom  "  its 
keeper"  (p.  130)  is  one  of  tliose  little  imaginative  toucties  that 
distinguish  this  writer. 


272  Pcniatcuchal  Studies 

cal    priesthood.       We  are    now    to    witness  a    further    step. 

Accepting  the  data  of  the  prophets  and  rejecting-  the  conflicting 

data  of  the  Hagiography,  we  must  hold  that  God  transferred 

the  high  priesthood  from  the  line  of  Aaron  to  Zadok  and  his 

descendants,  a  family  stated  by  Ezekiel  to  be  Levitical.     Here 

is  the  most  material  passage : — 

"And  there  came  a  man  of  God  unto  Eli,  and  said  nnto  liim,  Thus 
saith  the  Lord,  I  did  surely  reveal  myself  [Septuagiutal  text]  to 
thy  father's  house  when  they  were  in  Egypt  as  bondmen  [so  the 
LXX]  to  the  house  of  Pharaoh.  And  I  chose  him  out  of  all  the 
tribes  of  Israel  to  be  my  priest,  to  go  up  on  my  altar,  to  burn  incense, 
to  wear  an  ephod  before  me,  and  I  gave  to  thy  father's  house  all 
the  offerings  of  the  children  of  Israel  made  by  fire.  .  .  .  Therefore 
Baith  the  Lord,  the  God  of  Israel,  I  said  indeed  that  thy  house,  and 
thy  father's  house,  should  walk  before  me  for  ever ;  but  now,  saith 
the  Lord,  Far  be  it  from  me ;  for  them  that  honor  me  will  I  honor, 
and  they  that  despise  me  shall  be  lightly  esteemed.  Behold,  the 
days  come,  that  I  will  cut  off  thine  arm,  and  the  arm  of  thy  fa- 
ther's house  [or,  according  to  another  possible  pronunciation  of 
the  same  Hebrew  followed  by  the  LXX,  "  thy  seed  and  the  seed  of 
thy  father's  house,"].  .  .  .  And  I  will  raise  me  up  a  faithful  priest, 
that  shall  do  according  to  that  which  is  in  my  heart  and  in  my 
mind :  and  I  will  build  him  a  sure  house ;  and  he  shall  walk  be- 
fore mine  anointed  for  ever.  And  it  shall  come  to  pass,  that  every 
one  that  is  left  in  thy  house  shall  come  to  bow  down  to  him  for 
a  piece  of  silver  and  a  loaf  of  bread,  and  shall  say.  Put  me,  I  pray 
thee,  in  one  of  the  priests'  offices,  that  I  may  eat  a  morsel  of  bread  " 
(1  Sam.  ii.  27-36). 

But  one  priestly  personage  had  received  a  revelation  in 
Egypt,  and  it  was  he  that  was  subsequently  chosen  out  of  all 
the  tribes  of  Israel  to  be  a  priest.  Everything  in  the  descrip- 
tion applies,  naturally  interpreted,  to  Aaron  and  his  family. 
Apart  from  the  rationalistic  presuppositions,  the  following 
comments  of  Wellhausen  are  just:  "  Here  it  is  the  house  of 
Eh,  and  of  Eli's  father,  that  is  the  priestly  family  duly  chosen 
in  Egypt ;  contrary  to  hereditary  title,  and  contrary  to  a 
promise  of  perpetual  continuance,  is  it  deposed  at  the  higher 
claims  of  justice.     The  faithful  priest  who  is  to  fill  the  vacant 


Priests  and  Lcvitcs  273 

place  is  Zadok.  This  is  expressly  said  in  1  Kings  ii.  2?  :  and 
no  other  than  he  ever  had  '  a  sure  house,'  and  walked  uninter- 
ruptedly as  its  head  and  ruler  before  the  kings  of  Judah.  This 
Zadok,  accordingly,  belongs  neither  to  Eli's  house  nor  to  that 
of  Eli's  father ;  his  priesthood  does  not  go  back  as  far  as  to 
the  time  of  the  founding  of  the  theocracy,  and  is  not  in  any 
proper  sense  '  legitimate  ' ;  rather  has  he  obtained  it  by  the 
infringement  of  what  in  a  certain  degree  might  be  called  a 
constitutional  privilege,  to  which  there  were  no  other  heirs 
besides  Eli  and  his  family.  Obviously  he  does  not  figure  as  an 
intermediate  link  in  the  line  of  Aaron,  but  as  the  beginner  of 
an  entirely  new  genealogy  "(p-  126).  Ezekiel  speaks  of  the 
sons  of  Zadok  as  Levites  ( xli.  40,  etc.).  It  is  antecedently 
probable  that  if  a  man  like  Micah  preferred  to  have  a  Levite 
as  his  priest,  a  king  of  all  Israel  would  not  appoint  a  non- 
Levite :  and,  once  we  look  at  the  other  material  passages  from 
the  standpoint  we  have  now  reached,  we  see  how  they  all  fit  in. 
It  is  striking,  now,  that  Jeremiah  xxxiii.  18-22  speaks  of  the 
covenant  with  "  the  Levites,  the  priests  "  —  not  with  the  house 
of  Aaron.  Malachi  is  even  more  emphatic,  speaking  of  the 
covenant  with  Levi  (ii.).  From  the  beginning  of  Judges  to 
the  end  of  the  prophetical  writings  we  hear  of  Aaron  only  in 
1  Samuel  xii.  6,  8;  Micah  vi.  -4;  i.e.  in  passages  of  historical 
retrospect ;  we  never  hear  of  his  sons  as  the  priests  of  Jerusa- 
lem or  of  the  covenant  with  his  family.  When  the  author  of 
Kings  charges  Jeroboam  with  having  made  priests  of  persons 
who  w-ere  not  fitted  for  the  office  by  descent,  the  complaint 
is  that  he  "  made  priests  from  among  all  the  people,  which 
were  not  of  the  sons  of  Levi"  (1  Kings  xii.  31).  Surely 
these  facts  all  point  in  one  direction,  and  in  one  direction  only. 
The  Law  was  understood  as  entitling  all  suitable  Levites  to 
perform  priestly  offices:  and  it  was  known  and  realized  that 


274  Pcntatcitchal  Studies 

the  high  priesthood  itself  had  been  transferred  from  the  house 
of  Aaron  to  a  Levitical  non-Aaronic  family  when  Solomon 
deposed  Abiathar  and  appointed  Zadok  in  his  stead. 

What  Zadok  was  before  we  find  him  mentioned  in  David's 
reign  we  do  not  know.  Possibly  he  had  been  Saul's  priest  in 
the  later  years  of  the  latter's  reign.  The  first  king  had  quar- 
reled with  the  house  of  Eli ;  yet  that  he  had  a  priest  appears 
from  the  passage  where  we  read  that  the  Lord  answered  him 
not  with  Urim  (1  Sam.  xxviii.  6)  for  their  use  implies  the 
presence  of  a  priest.     But  on  this  point  no  certainty  is  possible. 

There  is  one  verse  in  the  books  of  Samuel  which  is  valuable 
for  our  purpose  because  it  throws  light  on  the  development 
of  the  hierarchy.  It  is  the  verse  already  cited  where  we  read 
that  Eli's  descendant  shall  come  and  bow  down  before  the 
high  priest  for  a  piece  of  silver  and  a  loaf  of  bread  and  ask  for 
one  of  the  priests'  offices  in  order  to  gain  a  living.  This 
shows  us  a  variety  of  priestly  posts,  with  emoluments  attached, 
to  which  the  high  priest  could  appoint.  Contrast  this  de- 
veloped organization  with  the  simplicity  of  the  Pentateuchal 
system,  in  which  we  find  one  high  priest  and  some  assistants 
without  gradations  of  rank  or  payments  in  silver.  Can  any 
candid  inquirer  doubt  which  of  the  two  representations  is  the 
earlier  in  point  of  time  ? 

In  passing  to  the  books  of  Kings  it  may  be  well  to  say  at 
once  that  the  reference  to  "  the  priests  the  Levites  "  in  1  Kings 
viii.  4  was  unknown  to  the  LXX,  and  was  probably  not  a  part 
of  the  original  text.  When  this  is  omitted,  the  data  of  this 
period  present  us  with  a  hierarchy  that  is  obviously  more 
developed  than  that  of  the  Pentateuch ;  while,  as  has  already 
been  indicated,  the  I>evitical  descent  of  the  priesthood  is  as- 
sumed as  unquestionable  (1  Kings  xii.  31).  It  is  perhaps  just 
worth  noticing  that  in  1  Kings  ii.  35  the  LXX  has  a  statement 


Priests  and  Lcvites  375 

that  the  king  made  Zadok  first  priest  instead  of  Abiathar. 
Whether  the  additional  words  be  accepted  or  rejected,  there 
can  be  no  doubt  that  they  represent  the  true  meaning-  of  the 
text. 

The  high  priest  is  often  mentioned  in  the  books  of  Kings  — 
generally,  like  Aaron  in  the  Pentateuch,  with  the  simple  title 
of  "  the  priest,"  but  sometimes  with  some  more  elaborate  style. 
Thus  we  read  of  "  Jehoiada  the  priest  and  the  priests  "  (2  Kings 
xii.  8),  though  he  is  also  called  "  the  high  priest "  in  verse  11, 
if  the  text  be  sound.  "Uriah  the  priest"  (xvi.)  is  another 
instance,  while  Hilkiah  is  sometimes  styled  "  the  priest  "  and 
sometimes  "  the  high  priest."  The  other  references  to  the 
hierarchical  organization  are  even  more  interesting,  though 
they  are  tantalizingly  meager.  We  read  of  a  second  priest 
(2  Kings  XXV.  18 ;  Jer.  Hi.  24 ;  also  2  Kings  xxiii.  4,  if  the  read- 
ing of  the  Targum  be  sound),  of  certain  guardians  of  the 
threshold  —  three  in  number —  who  appear  to  hold  high  rank 
in  the  hierarchy  (2  Kings  xxv.  18;  Jer.  Hi.  24;  2  Kings  xn. 
10),  and  of  "elders  of  the  priests"  (2  Kings  xix.  2;  Isa. 
xxxvii.  2 ;  Jer.  xix.  1,  if  the  text  in  the  last-cited  passage  be 
sound).  All  this  is  a  great  advance  on  the  Pentateuch,  as  are 
also  the  powers  of  the  overseer  of  the  house  of  the  Lord,  of 
whom  we  read  in  Jeremiah. 

If  we  except  Ezekiel,  the  most  interesting  passage  relating 
to  the  priesthood  that  has  come  down  to  us  from  this  period 
is  Jeremiah  xxxiii.  18-21.  Significance  attaches  in  particular 
to  the  variants  —  due  either  to  erroneous  interpretations  or  to 
glossators  —  that  have  been  preserved  by  the  Vulgate : 
"  Neither  shall  the  priests  [Vulg.  and  Syriac  add  "  and  "]  the 
Levites  want  a  man  before  me  to  offer  burnt-offerings,  and  to 
burn  oblations,  and  to  do  sacrifice  [Vulg.  adds  "  and  to  kill 
victims  1  continually then  may  also  my  covenant  be  broken 


270  '  Pentateuchal  Studies 

....  with  the  Levites  [Vulg.  adds  "  and  "|  the  priests  [Syriac, 
inverting,  reads  "  the  priests  and  the  Levites  "],  my  servants." 
Now  there  we  have  the  two  views  in  a  nutshell.  To  the  prophet, 
"  the  priests  the  Levites  "  are  the  ministers  of  God  who  are 
qualified  to  serve  him  at  the  altar  of  the  religious  capital: 
to  later  interpretation,  priests  and  Levites  are  two  separate 
classes :  the  latter  are  occupied  in  killing  victims,  while  only 
the  former  are  qualified  to  discharge  the  higher  duties.  The 
verses  are  lacking  altogether  in  the  LXX,  and  are  for  that  rea- 
son thought  by  some  to  be  the  work  of  a  later  writer.  If  that 
were  so,  it  would  merely  prove  that  the  original  view  survived 
to  a  later  date  than  that  of  Jeremiah.  As  the  priestly  func- 
tions of  Levi  are  fully  recognized  by  Malachi  (ii.  1-9;  iii.  3), 
and,  as  will  be  seen  hereafter,  were  also  regarded  as  histori- 
cally true  by  Ezekiel,  it  appears  clearly  that  the  whole  of  the 
second  part  of  the  Hebrew  canon  adopts  the  standpoint  of  the 
Law.  The  Aaronic  priesthood  was  merged  in  the  Levitical  by 
the  dispositions  of  Deuteronomy,  and  the  high  priesthood  was 
subsequently  transferred  from  the  line  of  Aaron  to  Zadok. 
In  the  organization  of  the  hierarchy  there  was  development 
during  this  period,  but  no  breach,  save  in  the  Northern  king- 
dom, with  the  fundamental  principle  that  the  priesthood  was 
Levitical.  The  duties  of  the  priests  remained  substantially 
what  they  had  been  from  the  Mosaic  age  onwards.  —  the 
charge  of  the  great  central  sanctuary  with  its  national  ofifer- 
ings,  the  performance  of  the  priestly  duties  in  the  case  of 
statutory  individual  ofiferings,  the  consulting  of  the  Urim  and 
Thummim,  and  the  giving  of  torah.  Amid  modifications  and 
developments  of  details  the  main  outlines  of  the  priestly  posi- 
tion and  the  priestly  duties  remain  unchanged.  Haggai  and 
Malachi  draw  for  us  the  same  picture  of  the  priesthood  as 
Leviticus  and  Deuteronomy.     One  prophet,  however,  deserves 


Priests  and  Levites  277 

separate  consideration  —  not  because  he  contradicts  our  other 
data,  but  because  special  importance  has  been  attached  to  his 
work  by  the  modern  critical  school.  We  shall  see  that  he  holds 
the  same  views  of  the  course  of  history  as  the  other  authori- 
ties we  have  examined,  but  that  he  also  realized  that  the 
changes  of  circumstances  which  had  taken  place  in  the  course 
of  centuries  called  for  corresponding  changes  in  the  priestly 
organization  and  ritual,  and  that  he  accordingly  propounded 
a  scheme,  not  by  way  of  literary  fraud  but  speaking  in  his  own 
proper  person  as  the  messenger  of  God. 

EZEKIEL 

The  prophet  Ezekiel  was  of  priestly  descent  and  displays 
extraordinary  interest  in  matters  of  priestly  concern.  The 
part  of  his  work  that  most  closely  concerns  us  is  a  portion  of 
the  vision  with  which  the  concluding  chapters  of  his  book 
are  occupied ;  but,  as  it  has  been  asserted  that  he  was  unac- 
quainted with  P,  we  must  just  glance  at  one  or  two  of  the 
facts  that  are  material  to  this  question.  No  reader  of  Ezekiel 
will  deny  that  there  exists  between  him  and  P  some  very  close 
relationship.  Either  he  has  steeped  his  mind  in  the  phrases 
and  thoughts  of  the  Pentateuch  or  else  he  in  some  way  in- 
fluenced its  composition.  In  considering  which  of  these  two 
views  is  correct  it  is  necessary  to  recall  several  facts. 

Ezekiel  writes :  *'  Her  priests  have  done  violence  to  my 
law,  and  have  profaned  mine  holy  things :  they  have  put 
no  difference  between  the  holy  and  the  common,  neither  have 
they  caused  men  to  discern  between  the  unclean  and  the  clean, 
and  have  hid  their  eyes  from  my  sabbaths,  and  I  am  profaned 
among  them  "  (xxii.  26).  This  is  tantamount  to  a  direct  state- 
ment that  Ezekiel  knew  a  law  following  the  very  words  of 


278  Penfatcuchal  Studies 

Leviticus  x.  10  and  other  passages  of  P.^  Other  proofs  are 
provided  by  the  passages  of  earlier  writers  and  Ezekiel  himself 
that  have  been  examined  in  "  Studies  in  Biblical  Law,"  "  Es- 
says in  Pentateuchal  Criticism,"  and  the  present  article,  and 
by  the  internal  marks  of  date  shown  by  P  itself.  It  may  safely 
be  said  that,  but  for  the  long-standing  misconceptions  of  the 
meaning  of  P,  nobody  would  ever  have  dreamt  of  denying 
Ezekiel's  acquaintance  with  it. 

When  we  come  to  the  vision  several  things  strike  us. 
Ezekiel  omits  to  mention  many  existing  institutions ;  for  in- 
stance, the  high  priesthood  and  the  Feast  of  Weeks.  Whatever 
the  reason  may  be,  it  is  clear  that  such  omissions  cannot  give 
ground  for  an  argument  from  silence,  seeing  that  both  these 
institutions  admittedly  existed  long  before  his  time.  Other 
elements  in  his  proposed  legislation  were  clearly  ideal  and 
could  never  have  been  realized  without  a  miracle.  In  some 
cases  our  information  does  not  suffice  to  enable  us  to  under- 
stand what  was  in  the  prophet's  mind  when  he  put  forward 
his  plan  for  dealing  with  them.  Yet  in  the  case  of  the  most 
important  of  all  the  proposed  changes  —  the  distinction  be- 
tween the  sons  of  Zadok  and  the  other  Levites  —  the  reasons 
he  gives  are  so  clear,  and  are  so  convincingly  supported  by  our 
other  information,  that  we  cannot  fail  to  understand  the  work- 
ings of  his  mind. 

In  xl.  45,  46,  he  begins  to  draw  a  distinction  between  "  the 
priests  that  keep  the  charge  of  the  house  "  and  ''  the  priests 
that  keep  the  charge  of  the  altar,  they  are  the  sons  of  Zadok 

^This  conclusively  refutes  Wellhausen's  "That  the  prophet 
should  know  nothing  about  a  priestly  law  with  whose  tendencies 
he  is  in  thorough  sympathy  admits  of  only  one  explanation,  —  that 
it  did  not  then  exist"  (p.  124).  Compare,  also,  the  inference  on 
page  123  as  to  the  non-existence  of  "  the  systematic  separation  of 
that  which  was  holy  from  profane  contact." 


Priests  and  Lcvitcs  279 

that  come  near  from  among  the  sons  of  Levi  to  the  Lord  to 
serve  him " ;  and  this  is  continued  in  subsequent  chapters. 
But  the  most  important  passage  of  all  is  xliv.  6-16 : — 

"And  thou  Shalt  say  to  the  rebellious,  even  to  the  house  of  Israel, 
Thus  saith  the  Lord  God:  O  ye  house  of  Israel,  let  it  suffice  you 
of  all  your  abominations,  in  that  ye  have  brought  in  aliens,  un- 
circumcised  in  heart  and  uncircumcised  in  flesh,  to  be  in  my  sanctu- 
ary, to  profane  it,  even  my  house,  when  ye  offer  my  bread,  the  fat 
and  the  blood,  and  ye  [so  read  with  LXX,  Syriac,  Vulgate]  have 
broken  my  covenant  with  [so  read  with  LXX,  Syriac.  Vulg.]  all 
your  abominations.  And  ye  have  not  kept  the  charge  of  mine 
holy  things :  but  ye  have  set  [read  probably  "  them  as,"  changing 
one  letter  of  the  Hebrew,]  keepers  of  my  charge  in  my  sanctuary. 
Therefore  [so  read  with  LXX]  thus  saith  the  Lord  God,  No  alien 
uncircumcised  in  heart  and  uncircumcised  in  flesh,  shall  enter  into 
my  sanctuary,  of  any  alien  that  is  among  the  children  of  Israel. 
But  the  Levites  that  went  far  from  me,  when  Israel  went  astray, 
which  went  astray  from  me  after  their  idols ;  they  shall  bear  their 
iniquity.  Yet  they  shall  be  ministers  in  my  sanctuary,  having 
oversight  at  the  gates  of  the  house,  and  ministering  in  the  house; 
they  shall  slay  the  burnt-offering  and  the  sacrifice  for  the  people, 
and  they  shall  stand  before  them  to  minister  unto  them.  Because 
they  ministered  unto  them  before  their  idols,  and  became  a 
stumbling-block  of  iniquity  unto  the  house  of  Israel ;  therefore  have 
I  lifted  up  mine  hand  against  them,  saith  the  Lord  God,  and  they 
shall  bear  their  iniquity.  And  they  shall  not  come  near  unto  me, 
to  execute  the  office  of  priest  unto  me,  nor  to  come  near  to  any  of 
my  holy  things,  unto  the  things  that  are  most  holy:  but  they  shall 
bear  their  shame,  and  their  abominations  which  they  have  com- 
mitted. Yet  will  I  make  them  keepers  of  the  Charge  of  the  house, 
for  all  the  service  thereof,  and  for  all  that  shall  be  done  therein. 
But  the  priests  the  Levites,  the  sons  of  Zadok,  that  kept  the  charge 
of  my  sanctuary  when  the  children  of  Israel  went  astray  from  me, 
they  shall  come  near  to  me  to  minister  unto  me,  and  they  shall 
stand  before  me  to  offer  unto  me  the  fat  and  blood,  saith  the  Lord 
God:  they  shall  enter  into  my  sanctuary,  and  they  shall  come  near 
to  my  table,  to  minister  unto  me,  and  they  shall  keep  my  charge." 

The  ideas  here  set  forth  are  worked  out  further  in  other 
parts  of  the  vision.  In  view  of  all  the  facts  we  have  consid- 
ered, the  prophet's  meaning  is  sun-clear.  Under  the  old 
system    many    abuses    had    crept    in.     One   that    concerns    us 


280  Pcntatcuchal  Studies 

particularly  relate?  to  the  entry  of  aliens  into  the  sanctuary. 
We  have  seen  that  the  Pentateuch  expected  the  sacrificant 
himself  to  slay  the  animals  that  he  presented  for  sacrifice  at 
the  religious  capital.  With  the  growth  of  luxury  well-to-do 
people  would  naturally  develop  a  distaste  for  the  functions  of 
a  slaughterer ;  while  the  increase  of  wealth,  with  the  concomi- 
tant increase  in  the  number  of  victims  ofifered,  rendered  the 
task  impossible.  To  meet  this  and  other  necessities  of  the 
natural  expansion  of  the  sacrificial  organization,  heathen 
hierodules  had  been  introduced.  Ezekiel  held  that  this  and 
other  practices  were  inconsistent  with  the  proper  separation  of 
holy  and  profane.  And  so  he  puts  forward  a  scheme  of  legis- 
lation which  shall  apply  the  Mosaic  principles  to  the  altered 
circumstances  of  the  age.  Among  the  Levites  most  had  been 
faithless :  Ezekiel  therefore  degrades  them  from  their  right  to 
the  full  priesthood  and  provides  that  they  shall  take  the  place 
of  the  temple  slaves  in  certain  necessary  functions.  On  the 
other  hand  the  sons  of  Zadok  had  been  loyal  to  their  charge. 
They  are  therefore  to  have  the  monopoly  of  the  full  priestly 
position,  and  Ezekiel  practically  reenacts  —  with  slight  modi- 
fications —  the  Pentateuchal  legislation  as  to  the  sons  of  Aaron, 
this  time  applying  it  to  the  sons  of  Zadok,  whom  history  and 
the  Divine  choice  had  set  in  the  place  of  the  descendants  of  the 
first  high  priest.  Other  provisions  (e.g.  xlii.  14;  xlv.  4flf.) 
are  designed  to  carry  out  more  effectually  the  dominating 
principle  of  the  legislation  —  the  due  separation  and  safe- 
guarding of  what  is  holy.  The  architecture  is  also  stated  to 
be  inspired  by  this  consideration  (see  especially  xliii.  7fif.). 
No  doubt  Ezekiel  throughout  borrows  from  the  ideas  of  the 
Pentateuch :  the  idea  of  the  separation  between  the  sons  of 
Zadok  and  the  rest  of  the  Levites  is  suggested  by  the  old 
wilderness  distinction  between  the  sons  of  Aaron  and  the  sons 


Priests  and  Lcvitcs  281 

of  Levi.  His  very  phraseology  is  adopted  from  the  language 
of  P,  though  familiar  expressions  such  as  "  keep  the  charge  " 
are  invested  with  a  new  meaning  suited  to  the  circumstances 
of  the  age  and  the  nature  of  the  functions  to  be  performed. 
In  so  far  as  it  is  practical,  Ezekiel's  legislation  may  be  defined 
as  an  endeavor  to  bring  up  to  date  and  apply  to  changed  cir- 
cumstances the  ideas  of  the  legislation  of  the  wilderness.  The 
need  of  the  reform  was  suggested  by  the  abuses  in  the  temple 
of  Solomon  and  the  disloyalty  of  the  Levites ;  its  principles 
were  developed  from  the  ideas  of  the  priestly  legislation ;  its 
language  was  borrowed  from  the  Pentateuch ;  its  methods 
were  dictated  by  the  teachings  of  experience.^ 

CONCLUSION 

On  the  view  set  forth  in  these  pages,  the  last  book  in  the 
Hebrew  canon  no  longer  governs  the  meaning  of  the  first,  and 
the   history   follows   an   orderly   and   intelligible  course   from 

^  This  paper  is  already  so  long  that  further  remarks  about 
Ezekiel's  vision  must  be  compressed  as  much  as  possible.  The  ex- 
planation given  of  the  provisions  as  to  the  Levites  contains  two 
elements:  (1)  that  it  was  designed  to  regulate  circumstances  that 
had  arisen  since  the  time  of  Moses  and  to  remedy  obvious  abuses 
and  defects,  and  (2)  that  for  this  purpose  Ezekiel  followed  as 
closely  as  he  could  the  old  Mosaic  provisions.  Both  these  are  con- 
firmed by  other  portions  of  the  vision. 

(1)  A  king's  offering  had  come  into  existence  in  the  monarchy 
in  addition  to  the  statutory  national  offerings  (2  Kings  xvi.  15). 
Naturally  Moses  had  not  provided  for  this.  Ezekiel  apparently 
regulates  it  in  xlvi.  2,  4-S,  11-15 ;  for  in  13  f.  the  second  person 
appears  to  have  ousted  the  third  which  is  found  in  several  MSS. 
and  Versions.  I  do  not  think  that  these  offerings  are  identical  with 
the  national  offerings  which,  according  to  xlv.  IG  f.,  were  to  be 
provided  by  the  prince  out  of  the  oblation  there  mentioned.  On  the 
contrary,  they  appear  to  be  additional  and  in  substitution  for  the 
king's  offering.  }iot  for  '  the  statutory  national  offerings  whic'h 
were  instituted  by  the  Pentateuch,  and  (see  Essays  in  Pentateuchal 
Criticism,  pp.  200-202)  are  found  in  existence  during  the  monarchy. 
Other   additions   to   the   Pentateuchal   legislation    (e.g.   xlvi.   16-18) 


282  Pentateuchal  Studies 

Moses  to  Malachi.  The  priesthood  of  Aaron  and  his  family  is 
created  to  provide  for  the  due  exercise  of  the  sacerdotal 
functions,  and  for  the  desert  period  a  tribe  is  set  apart  to  act 
as  sacred  porters  of  the  wilderness  sanctuary.  At  the  same 
time  a  corpus  of  ritual  legislation  is  given,  some  of  which 
applies  only  to  the  age  of  Moses,  while  other  portions,  intended 
for  use  after  the  conquest,  require  for  their  administration,  in 
the  conditions  of  settled  life,  a  numerous  and  scattered  priest- 
hood, such  as  could  not  be  provided  by  the  descendants  of 
Aaron  living  at  the  time  of  the  conquest.  On  the  eve  of  the 
entry  into  the  promised  land,  Deuteronomy  enlarged  the  rights 
and  duties  of  the  Levites  to  meet  the  need  thus  created.  From 
Moses  to  Malachi  every  writer  who  touches  on  the  subject 
recognizes  this  Levitical  priesthood.  The  high  priesthood 
remained  in  the  house  of  Aaron  till  the  time  of  Solomon,  when 
it  was  definitely  transferred  from  Abiathar  to  Zadok  of  the 
tribe  of  Levi,  and  it  remained  permanently  in  the  house  of  the 
latter.      Ezekiel,   writing   in   the   exile,   strove   to   purify    the 

are  evidently  also  due  to  post- Mosaic  changes  (this  indeed  applies 
to  xlv.  16  f.).  Probably  many  of  his  other  ordinances  are  intended 
to  meet  later  abuses.  For  instance,  when  one  reads  xlvi.  19-24,  the 
scene  at  Shiloh  in  the  days  of  Eli's  sons  recurs  to  the  mind,  and 
one  wonders  whether  this  and  other  architectural  details  are  not 
intended  to  insure  improvements  on  the  practice  of  Solomon's 
temple. 

(2)  With  regard  to  the  Mosaic  inspiration,  Van  Hoonacker  ap- 
pears to  me  to  have  hit  the  nail  on  the  head  with  his  suggestion 
that  the  impracticable  chess-board  division  of  the  land  —  so  im- 
possible in  a  country  like  Canaan  —  was  suggested  by  the  desert 
camp  where,  of  course,  the  Mosaic  pattern  was  feasible  and  natural. 
In  No.  34,  supra,  I  have  adduced  evidence  for  holding  that  the 
"  king "  of  the  Massoretic  text  was  unknown  to  the  original 
text  of  Deuteronomy,  in  which  case  Ezekiel's  "  prince "  would 
be  an  intentional  reversion  to  the  language  of  Moses.  While  there- 
fore it  imist  be  fully  admitted  thnt  Ezekiel's  vision  is  impractica- 
ble and  contains  ideal  elements,  it  does  not  seem  to  be  nearly  so 
difficult  of  explanation  as  is  commonly  supposed. 


Priests  and  Lcvites  283 

priesthood  and  the  ritual  from  the  abuses  which  had  crept  in. 
Finding  his  inspiration  in  the  books  of  Moses,  and  seeking  to 
remedy  the  serious  faults  of  the  organization,  he  put  forward 
a  plan  for  once  more  dividing  the  Levitical  priesthood  into 
two  classes ;  the  one  consisting  of  the  descendants  of  Zadok, 
who  should  be  priests  of  the  highest  type;  the  other  formed 
by  the  disloyal  Levites,  who  should  discharge  a  lower  ministry. 
In  many  respects  his  scheme  influenced  the  course  of  history, 
and  we  find  that  in  the  days  of  Nehemiah  a  distinction  is  drawn 
between  priests  and  Levites,  though  we  cannot  suppose  that  the 
sons  of  Zadok  were  alone  recognized  as  priests.  The  national 
misfortunes  had  put  a  new  spirit  into  the  people.  A  study  of 
the  Law  in  its  entirety,  including  even  the  most  technical  parts, 
began  to  spread  in  non-priestly  circles.^  The  destruction  of 
Kingdom  and  Temple  had  put  an  end  to  the  period  in  which 
new  precedents  were  readily  created  to  meet  fresh  needs.  It 
had  also  dispersed  the  central  body  of  priests  who  had  con- 
tinued the  line  of  interpreters  of  the  original  meaning  of  the 
Mosaic  law.  This  task  now  fell  to  men  who  were  not  equally 
in  touch  with  the  original  living  tradition,  and  might  be  largely 
theorists  not  particularly  fitted  by  their  professional  occupa- 
tions to  solve  the  problems  that  arose.  The  results  were 
curious.  On  the  one  hand  men  regarded  the  Torah  as  con- 
taining unchangeable  rules  that  were  applicable  to  their  own 
day :  on  the  other  they  were  confronted  with  institutions 
(such  as  the  Nethinim  and  the  children  of  Solomon's  servants) 
that  were  long  subsequent  to  the  age  of  Moses,  and  with  needs 
for  which  the  Torah  did  not  provide.  The  creative  period  was 
over ;  it  only  remained  to  modify  under  the  guise  of  explain- 

^  Originally  large  portions  of  the  Pentateuch  were  intended  to 
reach  the  people  only  through  the  teac'hing  of  the  priests.  Even 
Ezekiel   (xliv.  23)   held  this  view  as  completely  as  Moses  and  the 

other  prophets. 


2S4  Pentatcuchal  Studies 

ing.  Accordingly  there  arose  a  system  of  interpretation  which 
read  the  Law  in  the  light  of  circumstances  for  which  it  was 
never  intended,  and  put  into  its  provisions  meanings  that  had 
not  been  contemplated  by  the  Lawgiver.  The  chain  of  living 
tradition  and  formative  precedent  had  been  snapped  by  the 
exile :  the  work  of  Ezekiel  had  tended  to  direct  the  current  of 
religious  progress  into  the  new-old  channels  that  seemed  to 
provide  for  the  needs  of  the  period  by  the  devices  of  the  Mo- 
saic ordinances :  the  labors  of  the  scholarly  interpreters  of  the 
Law  —  the  scribes  —  did  the  rest.  These  factors  brought  into 
existence  the  non-Mosaic  Mosaism  with  which  we  meet  in 
the  books  of  Chronicles  and  in  the  glosses  on  the  text  of  the 
earlier  books. ^ 

^With  regard  to  the  Chronicler,  I  think  it  well  to  quote  the  fol- 
lowing passage  from  my  review  of  Curtis  and  Madsen's  commen- 
tary in  the  Churchman  (London)  for  January,  1911,  in  explanation 
of  the  true  puriwse  of  his  work : — "  It  is  to  be  observed  that  the 
Chronicler  himself  twice  refers  to  a  '  midrash '  as  an  authority. 
The  following  extract  from  the  article  '  Midrash '  in  the  '  Jewish 
Encycloptedia '  throws  some  light  on  the  meaning  of  this  expression : 

"  'A  term  occurring  as  early  as  2  Chron.  xiii.  22,  xxiv.  27,  though 
perhaps  not  in  the  sense  in  which  it  came  to  be  used  later,  and 
denoting  "  exposition."  "  exegesis,"  especially  that  of  the  Scrip- 
tures. In  contradistinction  to  literal  interpretation,  subsequently 
called  "  peshat,"  the  term  "  midrash "  designates  an  exegesis 
which,  going  more  deeply  than  the  mere  literal  sense,  attempts  to 
l)enetrate  into  the  spirit  of  the  Scriptures,  to  examine  the  text 
from  all  sides,  and  thereby  to  derive  interpretations  which  are  not 
immediately  obvious.  .  .  .  The  divergence  between  midrash  and 
peshat  increased  steadily ;  and,  although  the  consciousness  of  this 
divergence  may  not  have  increased  in  a  proportionate  degree  .... 
it  was  never  wholly  obscured'    (vol.  viii.  p.  548). 

"  Of  the  countless  millions  of  Jews  who  have  used  this  term 
through  the  ages,  one  only  'has  produced  work  that  was  deemed 
w^orthy  of  inclusion  in  the  Canon..  That  one  was  the  Chronicler. 
It  is  reasonable  to  suppose  that  he  knew  the  meaning  that  the  ex- 
pression had  in  his  own  time,  and  the  only  question  tliat  can  arise 
is   whether   that   meaning   was   or   was   not   the   same   as   in    later 


Priests  and  Lcvitcs  28- 


times.  If  we  found  such  a  word  as  '  allegory '  employed  by  a 
narrator  to  designate  one  of  bis  sources,  it  would  be  fair  to  in- 
quire whether  he  used  the  word  in  the  sense  that  appears  natural 
to  us,  or  In  some  other  sense,  and  the  answer  would  be  determined 
by  internal  evidence.  If  it  then  appeared  that  the  narrative  based 
on  that  source  really  was  allegorical  in  character,  we  should  con- 
clude (1)  that  he  had  in  fact  used  the  word  in  the  sense  with 
which  we  are  familiar,  and  (2)  that  his  original  public  would 
have  understood  this  as  well  as  we  do. 

"  Now,  any  thinking  reader  of  2  Cliron.  xiii.  will.  I  imagine,  agree 
that  it  is  not  literal  history.  When,  therefore,  we  find  the  only 
authority  referred  to  in  this  chapter  designated  by  the  appropriate 
term  '  midrash,'  it  seems  impossible  to  doubt  that  the  expression 
is  used  in  substantially  the  same  sense  as  later,  and  that  the 
Chronicler  and  his  original  readers  appreciated  this  as  well  as 
could  any  modern.  (R.  V.  'commentary'  entirely  fails  to  convey  the 
meaning  of  'midrash.')  The  real  meaning  of  the  chapter  must  be 
sought  in  such  phrases  as.  '  But  as  for  us,  the  Lord  is  our  God, 
and  we  have  not  forsaken  Him ; '  'And,  behold.  God  is  with  us 
at  our  head ; '  '  O  children  of  Israel,  fight  ye  not  against  the  Lord, 
the  God  of  our  fathers.'  And  so  it  came  about  that  Talmudic  au- 
thorities did  not  question  the  canonicity  of  Chronicles,  but  treated 
it  as  a  book  intended  for  the  particular  kind  of  spiritual  exposi- 
tion which  is  designated  '  midrash.'  This  is  really  what  is  meant 
by  the  harsh  and  unsympathetic  paragraph  of  the  '  Jewish  Ency- 
clopjedia,'  which  Professor  Curtis  summarizes  in  the  following  sen- 
tence : 

" '  While  in  rabbinical  literature  Chronicles  was  regarded  with 
suspicion,  its  historical  accuracy  being  doubted  by  Talmudic  author- 
ities, and  it  being  held  to  be  a  book  for  homiletical  interpretation, 
yet  its  canonicity,  as  some  have  thought,  never  seems  really  to 
have    been    questioned'    (p.    2). 

"  Failure  to  grasp  this  truth  has  led  to  the  most  perverted  views 
of  the  Chronicler,  his  work,  and  its  historical  and  religious  value. 
I  suppose  that,  after  what  has  been  said,  my  readers  will  have  no 
difficulty  in  appreciating  2  Chron.  xiii.  Let  us  glance  at  another 
instance :  In  1  Chron,  xxv.  we  are  told  that  David  instituted  cer- 
tain Levitical  musical  services.  Verse  4  brings  us  to  a  list  of 
names.  Though  there  is  a  good  deal  of  corruption,  it  is  absolutely 
certain  that  many  of  these  names  are  not  proper  names  at  all,  but 
Hebrew  words  including  some  verbs  like  '  Giddalti '  (I  have  made 
great).  It  is  generally  agreed  that  originally  these  words  formed 
a  consecutive  sentence,  but  owing  to  the  state  of  the  text  the  ex- 


286  Pentatenchal  Studies 

act  details  are  not  clear.     The  reading  faA^oured  by  Professor  Cur- 
tis is  rendered  by  bim  as  follows : 

"  '  Be  gracious  unto  me,  O  Yah,  be  gracious  unto  me ; 
Thou  art  my  God  whom  I  magnify  and  exalt. 
O  my  Help  (or,  Thou  art  my  Help)  when  in  trouble.  I  say, 
He  giveth  (or.  Give)  an  abundance  of  visions.' 

"This  rendering  will  do  as  well  as  any  other  for  the  purpose 
of  my  illustration.  It  will  then  be  followed  immediately  by  verse 
5,  'All  these  were  the  sons  of  Heman  the  king's  seer  in  the  words 
of  God,'  etc.  Now,  I  ask,  if  this  were  an  English  book,  would  any 
English  reader  think  there  were  men  who  literally  were  called  by 
such  names  as  '  I  magnify,'  etc.  ?  Would  he  proceed  to  infer  that 
the  author  of  the  book  believed  this  'to  be  literal  history,  or  for 
one  moment  imagined  that  his  readers  could  suppose  it  to  be  so? 
Would  he,  then,  charge  him  with  '  deliberate  invention  or  distor- 
tion of  history,'  or  seek  to  defend  him  against  such  a  charge  by 
insisting  that  he  has  'worked  everywhere  according  to  sources'? 
(See  J.  Wellhausen,  "Prolegomena,"  Eng.  trans,  p.  222  (quoting 
Dillmann).)  Or  would  he  inveigh  against  his  'law-crazed  fancy'? 
(Op.  cit.,  p.  10.5.)  Or  would  he  write  a  note  saying,  'Why  what 
was  possibly  an  ancient  prayer  should  thus  be  resolved  Into  proper 
names  cannot  be  determined'?  (Curtis  and  Madsen.  p.  278.)  How 
many  readers  of  the  '  Odyssey '  wonder  that  Ovrti  could  have  been 
regarded  as  a  name  by  Odysseus  and  the  Cyclops  —  or  the  Greeks 
who  listened  to  the  Rhapsodists?  What  would  happen  if  the  '  Pil- 
grim's Progress"  were  edited  on  such  lines?  Or  is  it  really  sup- 
posed that  a  Hebrew-writing  canonical  author  could  be  so  ineffably 
stupid  as  to  write  words  like  '  I  magnify,'  '  I  exalt,'  etc.,  in  his  orvn 
language  without  understanding  what  he  was  writing?  Read  the 
lines  of  the  prayer  as  conjecturally  restored,  and  consider :  were 
not  all  these  in  a  very  deep  and  spiritual  sense  the  sons  of  Heman 
the  king's  seer  in  the  words  of  God?  Can  any  Temple  service  do 
more  than  establish  such  communion  between  men  and  God?  The 
chapter  may  be  corrupt,  the  details  are  not  in  all  cases  clear,  but 
the  bed-rock  meaning  is  as  plain  as  could  be  desired.  When  the 
Chronicler  is  tried  for  this  falsification  of  history,  all  who  have 
ever  spoken  in  parable  or  allegory  will  be  his  companions  in  the 
dock.     Shall  we  speak  of  law-crazed  fancy  or  spiritual  insight?" 


XXI 
THE  HIGH  PRIEST 

[From   the  liihliotheca  Sacra,  January,   1911.] 

The  paper  on  "  Priests  and  Levites  "  ^  grew  so  long  that  it 
was  impossible  to  include  many  remarks  on  the  high  priest; 
yet  one  or  two  observations  fall  to  be  made  respecting  Well- 
hausen's  theory  on  this  point.  Most  of  his  discussion  consists 
simply  in  putting  indubitable  facts  from  his  own  peculiar  point 
of  view.  Thus  it  is  certainly  the  case  that  in  1  Samuel  ii.  36 
the  principal  priest  appoints  some  of  his  inferiors :  but  this 
really  tells  against  Wellhausen.  The  Priestly  Code  knows  no 
priestly  offices  with  salaries  attached  and  points  to  a  much  sim- 
pler organization.  Aaron's  sons  act  under  his  oversight  (Num. 
iii.  4),  as  Wellhausen  urges  on  page  149  of  his  Prolegomena; 
but  that  is  true  of  the  inferior  priests  from  the  earliest  times. 
Eli's  sons  proved  too  insubordinate  for  their  weak  and  aged 
father,  yet  the  latter  was  held  responsible  by  the  prophet — ob- 
viously because  it  was  his  duty  to  control  them.  The  whole  of 
Wellhausen's  reasoning  about  the  king  is  worthless  unless  the 
Priestly  Code  can  be  demonstrated  to  be  post-Mosaic.  In  the 
discussion  of  "  Priests  and  Levites  "  it  was  shown  to  be  untrue 
that  "  the  so-called  Mosaic  theocracy  ....  is,  so  to  speak,  a 
perfect  fit  for  post-exilian  Judaism  and  had  its  actuality  only 
there  "  -  and  this  is  proved  still  more  fully  in  my  article 
above,  "  Some  Aspects  of  the  Conservative  Task  in  Penta- 
teuchal  Criticism."  "  As  a  whole  the  question  of  the  high 
priest  has  very  little  decisive  force  one  way  or  another,  because 
in  dealing  with  it  Wellhausen  has  not  produced  a  single  cogent 

argument.     His  discussion  is  noteworthy  only  for  its  special 

^  Supra,   No.   20.  "Op.   cit.,  p.  151.  "Supra,   No.   1. 

287 


288  Pcntatcnchal  Studies 

coloring,  yet  there  is  one  point  that  calls  for  notice.  On  page 
150,  he  writes :  "  His  death  makes  an  epoch ;  it  is  when  the  high 
priest — not  the  king — dies  that  the  fugitive  slayer  obtains  his 
amnesty  (Num.  xxxv.  28)."  In  point  of  fact  this  very  law — 
that  of  Numbers  xxxv.  —  was  singled  out  by  Dareste  as  the 
most  archaic  portion  of  the  legislation.  I  reproduce  here  his 
remarks,  together  with  some  comments  of  my  own  from  page 
24  of  my  "  Notes  on  Hebrew  Religion  " : — 

"  Nous  n'avons  pas  t  examiner  ici  2.  quelle  6poque  a  6t6  6crit  le 
Pentateuque,  Ce  qu'on  peut  affirmer,  c'est  que  les  institutions  dont 
il  nous  donne  le  tableau  sont  tr6s  aneiennes,  contemporaines 
de  rstablissement  d'un  pouvoir  central.  On  en  trouve  d'ana- 
logues  Chez  tons  les  peuples,  au  moment  oQ  ils  ont  cess6  d'etre 
un  assemblage  de  families  pour  devenir  une  nation  et  former 
d'etre  un  assemblage  de  families  pour  devenir  une  nation  et  former 
un  Etat.  Ce  n'est  pas  non  plus  une  legislation  ideale,  une  utopie 
retrospective.  11  n'y  a  pas  une  des  lois  mosai'ques  qui  n'ait  6t6 
rfiellement  pratiqu6e  chez  des  peuples  autres  que  les  H6breux.  La 
plus  archaique  de  ces  lois  est  celle  que  nous  lisons  dans  le  (?hapltre 
xxxv.  du  livre  des  Nombres"  (Etudes  d'Histoire  du  Droit,  p.  28, 
n.).  The  last  two  sentences  appear  to  me  to  need  some  qualifica- 
tion— ^e.g.,  it  might  reasonably  be  contended  that  some  other  por- 
tions of  the  legislation  are  as  archaic  (as  distinguished  from  an- 
cient) as  Num.  xxxv.  (I  would  remark  parenthetically,  that  on  p. 
22  Dareste  had  devoted  special  attention  to  this  chapter  and  its 
parallels  in  Greek  and  Icelandic  law.)  Indeed,  I  gather  from  pp. 
23,  24,  that  Dareste  would  say  the  same  of  Dent,  xxi,  1-9.  But  the 
soundness  of  his  general  position  could  not  be  questioned  by  any 
student  of  comparative  jurisprudence  who  examined  the  Mosaic 
legislation  with  an  unprejudiced  mind." 

The  true  explanation  of  the  position  of  the  high  priest  is 
quite  different  from  that  supposed  by  Wellhausen.  This  law 
is  merely  a  generalization  and  amplification  of  the  personal  ex- 
periences of  Moses  the  manslayer  ^  and  the  high  priest  takes 
the  place  of  Pharaoh  because  he  was  the  only  permanent  he- 
reditary official  created  by  the  law. 

*  See  Studies  in  Biblical  Law,  pp.  104  f. 


The  High  Fricst  289 

Wellhausen's  idea  of  the  high  priest  is  really  closely  bound 
up  with  his  view  that  P  represents  the  Israelites  as  a  church. 
In  another  place  he  writes :  "  Now  the  smaller  sacred  fellow- 
ships get  lost,  the  varied  groups  of  social  life  disappear  in  the 
neutral  shadow  of  the  universal  congregation  or  church  my, 
hnp)-  The  notion  of  this  last  is  foreign  to  Hebrew  antiquity, 
but  runs  through  the  Priestly  Code  from  beginning  to  end  " 
(p.  78).  It  would  be  truer  to  say  that  our  translation  of  these 
Hebrew  words  colors  them  in  a  manner  that  does  not  accurately 
represent  the  original  meaning.  When  we  read  of  bees 
(Judges  xiv.  8)  we  do  not  postulate  an  ecclesiastical  organiza- 
tion, and  translate  by  "  congregation  "  or  "  church  "  just  be- 
cause we  find  the  word  r.-j' :  nor  is  it  true  that  the  notion  con- 
veyed by  these  words  is  foreign  to  Hebrew  antiquity.  Deuter- 
onomy contains  laws  excluding  certain  persons  from  the  ^np, 
and  Genesis  xlix.  6;  Numbers  xxii.  4  (R.  V.,  "multitude")  ; 
Deuteronomy  v.  22  ;  ix.  10 ;  xxxi.  30  ;  Joshua  viii.  35  ;  1  Samuel 
xvii.  47 ;  1  Kings  viii.  14 ;  Micah  ii.  5 ;  1  Kings  xii.  20,  all  pro- 
test against  Wellhausen's  allegations.  On  the  other  hand,  in 
many  cases  "  horde,"  and  even  "  crowd,"  would  render  the 
meaning  of  the  words  more  exactly  to  modern  readers  than  the 
translation  "  congregation." 


XXII 

THE  FIFTH  CHAPTER  OF  WELLHAUSEN'S 
PROLEGOMENA 

[From   the  Bihliothcca   i^acra,   October,   1911.] 

The  fifth  chapter  of  Wellhatisen's  Prolegomena  completes 
the  "  History  of  Worship,"  which  forms  the  earliest  and 
most  important  division  of  this  celebrated  book.  It  is  en- 
titled "  The  Endowment  of  the  Clergy,"  and  while  it  does 
not  possess  anything  like  the  interest  or  the  consequence  of 
the  first  four  chapters  it  yet  claims  consideration  in  this  series 
of  articles.  In  many  respects  it  carries  to  their  logical  con- 
clusions mistakes  that  we  have  had  to  examine  in  their  earlier 
stages.  It  is  thus  natural  to  subject  it  to  some  consideration, 
although  the  topics  with  which  it  deals  are  in  some  instances 
incapable  of  satisfactory  treatment  because  of  the  extreme 
scantiness  of  our  material.  The  chapter  itself  is  divided 
into  two  main  sections,  —  the  first  dealing  with  certain  offer- 
ings, the  second  with  the  Levitical  cities. 

I. 
The  various  kinds  of  offerings  must,  of  course,  be  con- 
sidered separately.  This  chapter  is  singularly  difficult  to 
deal  with  satisfactorily,  for  Wellhausen  here  surpasses  him- 
self in  inaccuracy  and  confusion ;  as,  for  instance,  when  he 
writes,  "  In  Deuteronomy  the  priests  are  entirely  thrown  upon 

the    sacrifices if   they    are    not    exercising   the    priestly 

function  they  must  starve  (1  Sam.  ii.  36)."^     How  or  when 

'Prolegomena   (Eng.  Trans.),  p.  155. 

290 


Fifth   Chapter  of   WcUhauscn's  Prolegomena         291 

First  Samuel  became  a  part  of  Deuteronomy  is  not  explained 
nor  are  we  told  why  the  denunciation  which  obviously  applies 
only  to  a  single  house  —  that  of  Eli  —  should  be  extended 
to  the  other  priestly  houses  which  were  not  implicated  in 
its  guilt.  The  statement  itself  is  contradicted  on  the  pre- 
ceding page,  where  we  are  informed  that  "  at  an  earlier 
date  the  priests  of  Jerusalem  received  money  from  those  who 
employed  them  (Deut.  xviii.  8),  but  for  this  had  the  obliga- 
tion of  maintaining  the  temple."  This  is  an  extraordinary 
falsehood,  for  Deuteronomy  xviii.  8  reads :  "  They  [i.e. 
Levites  coming  from  the  provinces]  shall  have  like  portions 
to  eat,  beside  that  which  cometh  of  the  sale  of  his  patrimony." 
In  Wellhausen's  hands  this  becomes  a  payment  of  money 
from  those  who  employed  them,  coupled  with  an  obligation 
of  maintaining  the  temple,  and  that  though,  on  the  very  next 
page,  he  alleges  that  they  ,are  entirely  thrown  upon  the 
sacrifices. 

In  refuting  such  a  discussion  the  only  course  open  is  to 
pick  out  the  more  or  less  salient  points  and  treat  of  those  — 
for  the  correction  of  every  minor  inaccuracy  would  consume 
space  needlessly.  The  first  matter  of  importance  appears  to 
be  a  comparison  of  the  priestly  dues  in  1  Samuel  ii.  12-16 ; 
Deuteronomy  xviii.  3 ;  and  Leviticus  vii.  34.  In  the  first 
passage  the  "  tribute  of  raw  portions  of  flesh  before  the 
burning  of  the  fat "  is  "  treated  as  a  shameless  demand." 
"  More  tolerable  is  it,  though  even  that  is  an  abuse,  when 
the  priests  cause  boiled  flesh  to  be  brought  them  from  the 
pot"  (p.  153).  Now  I  have  already  shown  that,  contrary  to 
Wellhausen's  assumption,  the  Priestly  Code  contemplates 
boiled  flesh  for  the  priestly  dues,^  and  of  course,  on  any  view, 

^  Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism,  pp.  211  f.  =  Bibliotheca  Sacra, 
October,  1909,  pp.  728  f. 


292  Pentateuchal  Studies 

the  conduct  of  the  priests  is  an  abuse;  thus  there  is  no  dis- 
crepancy between  this  passage  and  Leviticus.  There  re- 
mains the  question  of  the  relations  between  Deuteronomy  and 
Leviticus. 

"  ....  We  have  it  in  Deuteronomy  as  '  the  priest's  due  from  the 
people'  (xviii.  3=1  Sam.  ii.  12)  that  he  receives  the  shoulder  and 
the  two  cheeks  and  the  maw  of  the  slaughtered  animal;  and  yet 
this  is  a  modest  claim  compared  with  what  the  sons  of  Aaron 
have  in  the  Priestly  Code  (Lev.  vii.  34),  — the  right  leg  and  the 
breast.  The  course  of  the  development  is  plain;  the  Priestly  Code 
became  law  for  Judaism.  In  sacrifice,  its  demands  were  those 
which  were  regarded;  but  in  order  to  fulfil  all  righteousness  the 
precept  of  Deuteronomy  was  also  maintained,  this  being  applied 
—  against  the  obvious  meaning  and  certainly  only  as  a  result  of 
later  scrupulosity  of  the  scribes  —  not  to  sacrifices  but  to  ordinary 
secular  slaughterings,  from  which  also  accordingly  the  priests  re- 
ceived a  portion  .  .  .  .the  precept  being  thus  harmonistically 
doubled"   (pp.  153  f.). 

It  will  probably  come  as  a  surprise  to  Wellhausen's  fol- 
lowers to  be  told  that  Deuteronomy  does  not  permit  any 
"  ordinary  secular  slaughterings "  in  the  religious  capital ; 
but  the  express  terms  of  the  law  are  in  this  matter  too  clear 
for  doubt:  "  Tf  the  place  which  the  Lord  thy  God  shall 
choose  to  put  his  name  there  be  too  far  from  thee,  then  thou 
mayest  kill  of  thy  herd  and  of  thy  flock.  .  .  .and  thou  mayest 
eat  within  thy  gates"  (xii.  20).  That  is  plain  enough:  the 
permission  is  limited  to  those  who  live  at  too  great  a  dis- 
tance from  the  place.  But  it  is  so  worded  as  not  to  apply  to 
the  capital.  Hence  animals  slaughtered  there  for  food  purposes, 
only,  would  still  have  to  be  sacrificed.  If  we  turn  to  Deuter- 
onomy xviii.  3,  we  find  that  it  deals  with  the  priests'  due 
"  from  them  that  slaughter  a  sacrifice."  The  conjecture  lies 
close  at  hand  that  the  law  is  intended  to  apply  to  inhabitants 
of  the  capital  sacrificing  merely  for  food  purposes.  They 
would  be  under  a  heavy  disadvantage  as  compared  with  per- 


Fifth  Chapter  of  Wcllhauscn's  Prolegomena         393 

sons  dwelling  at  a  distance  in  having  to  pay  any  due  at  all 
on  such  animals,  and  accordingly  the  legislation  grants  them 
some  relief  in  making  it  lighter  than  that  on  an  ordinary  peace- 
offering.  It  is  of  course  impossible  on  our  present  materials 
to  prove  this  with  certainty.  All  that  can  be  said  is  that 
the  permission  of  profane  slaughtering  did  not  apply  to  these 
inhabitants  so  that  they  must  have  had  to  pay  some  due ;  that 
Deuteronomy  xviii.  in  terms  covers  their  case ;  and  that  it  is, 
therefore,  reasonable  to  suppose  that  it  is  to  them  that  the 
due  contemplated  by  Deuteronomy  xviii.  applies.^  This  ex- 
plains the  difference  of  terminology  between  Deuteronomy 
and  Leviticus  (which  applies  in  terms  to  sacrifices  of  peace- 
oft'e  rings). 

The  next  matter  of  importance  dealt  with  in  this  chapter 
is  the  question  of  firstlings.  I  have  treated  of  this  before, 
but  I  think  it  well  to  allude  to  the  matter  shortly.  Well- 
hausen  believes  that  in  Deuteronomy  xv.  19,  20,  "  to  sanctify 
unto  the  Lord,"  "  to  eat  before  the  Lord,"  and  "  to  offer  to  the 
Lord  "  are  three  equivalent  ideas. 

"  ....  If  now,  in  Num.  xviii.  15  seq.,  every  first  birth  is  assigned 
without  circumlocution  to  the  priest,  and  a  special  paschal  offering 
is  appointed  in  addition,  this  can  only  be  understood  as  the  last 
phase  in  the  development,  partly  because  the  idea  of  dues  alto- 
gether is  secondary  to  that  of  offerings,  and  partly  because  the 

'  During  the  desert  period,  animals  killed  for  food  were  to  be 
sacrificed  for  peace-offerings  from  the  time  of  the  enactment  of 
Leviticus  xvii.  5.  Presumably,  therefore,  the  usual  dues  on  a  peace- 
offering  were  paid  on  them,  and  so  long  as  a  sufficiency  of  manna 
was  miraculously  provided  for  food,  this  involved  no  hardship. 
But  the  case  of  the  inhabitants  of  the  capital  was  different.  From 
the  time  of  the  settlement  they  alone  of  all  Israelites  were  under 
a  legal  incapacity  to  slaughter  non-saerificially  for  food.  It  would 
therefore  be  reasonable  that  a  smaller  due  should  be  paid  by  them 
on  such  sacrifices  than  was  habitual  Jn  the  case  of  ordinary  peace- 
offerings. 


294  Pentateuchal  Studies 

immense  augmentation  to  the  income  of  the  priests  points  to  an 
increase  of  the   hierocratic  power"    (pp.   155  f.). 

The  answer  is  shortly  that  a  careful  examination  of  the  legal 
texts  shows  that  in  the  Law  this  sanctifying  of  an  animal 
meant  withdrawing  it  from  ordinary  use,  and  sacrificing  it  to 
the  Lord ;  and  that  the  rule  in  Numbers  v.  9  f.  expressly  ap- 
plies to  such  cases,  and  explains  the  relationship  of  Deuteron- 
omy XV.  and  Numbers  xviii.  On  the  true  construction  of  the 
laws,  a  heave-offering  was  to  be  given  to  the  priest ;  and  Num- 
bers xviii.  only  applies  to  such  heave-offerings.  Probably  this 
heave-offering  usually  consisted  of  one  or  more  firstlings. 
The  fact  that  the  law  was  interpreted  otherwise  after  the  exile 
cannot  of  course  override  its  very  plain  expressions.^ 

Before  dealing  with  tithes,  we  may  clear  away  the  unsound 
views  entertained  by  Wellhausen  about  first-fruits. 

"  With  the  tithe  of  the  fruit  of  the  soil  the  first-fruits  are  at 
bottom  identical ;  the  latter  were  reduced  to  definite  measure  later 
and  through  the  influence  of  the  former.  .  .  .  But  also,  the  reshith, 
usually  translated  first-fruits,  occurs  in  Deuteronomy,  —  as  a  pay- 
ment of  corn,  wine,  oil,  and  wool  to  the  priests  (xviii.  4)  ;  a  small 
portion,  a  basketful,  thereof  is  brought  before  the  altar  and  dedi- 
cated with  a  significant  liturgy  (xxvi.  1  seq.).  It  appears  that  it 
is  taken  from  the  tithe,  as  might  he  inferred  from  xxvi.  12  seq. 
taken  as  the  continuation  of  vers.  1-11 ;  in  one  passage,  xxvi.  2,  the 
more  general  nsus  loquendi  reappears,  according  to  which  the  resliith 
means  the  entire  consecrated  fruit,  which  as  a  whole  is  consumed 
by  the  offerers  before  the  Lord,=  and  of  which  the  priests  receive 
only  a  portion.  But  in  the  Priestly  Code  not  only  is  the  entire 
tithe  demanded  as  a  due  of  the  clergy,  the  reshith  also  is  de- 
manded in  addition  (Num.  xviii.  12),  and  it  is  further  multiplied, 
inasmuch  as  it  is  demanded  from  the  kneading-trough  as  well  as 
from  the  threshing-floor;  in  every  leavening  the  halla  belongs  to  the 
Lord  (xv.  20).  Nor  is  this  all;  to  the  reshith  (xviii.  12),  are  added 
the  Mklcurim  also    (xviii.   13),  as  something  distinct.     The  distinc- 

^  For  proof  of  the  alK^)vo,  see  tlie  Churchman  (Txtndon).  July. 
1906,   pp.  425-430. 

"As  usual  I  have  substituted  "the  Lord"  for  Wellhausen's 
transliteration  of  the  Tctragrammaton. 


Fifth  Chapter  of   IVcUJianscns  Prolegomena         295 

tion  does  not  occur  elsewhere  (Exod.  xxxiv.  2G)  ;  prepared  fruits 
alone  are  invariably  spoken  of,  the  yield  of  the  threshing-floor  and 
the  wine-press,  of  which  first  produce  —  'the  fulness  and  the 
overflow '  —  was  to  be  consecrated.  The  fa*  of  oil,  wine,  and  corn 
is  the  main  thing  in  Num.  xviii.  also,  and  is  called  reshith  (ver. 
12  )  or  ternmah  (ver.  27)  ;  but  the  hikkurim  (ver.  13)  seem  to  be 
a  separate  thing,  and,  if  this  be  really  the  case,  must  mean  those 
raw  fruits  which  have  ripened  earliest"   (pp.  157  f.). 

It  is  well  in  answering-  this  to  begin  with  reshith  and 
hikkurim.  There  can  be  no  doubt  as  to  the  enormous  dif- 
ference between  the  two  in  the  legal  texts. 

First,  as  to  the  dates.  In  Leviticus  xxiii.  we  have  clear 
proof  that  the  two  offerings  were  separated  by  an  interval 
of  seven  zveeks.  Reshith  was  oft'ered  (ver.  10  and  11)  forty-nine 
days  before  hikkurim  (ver.  15-17).  The  day  of  the  hikkurim 
was  the  feast  of  weeks,  or  Pentecost,  and  it  is  with  this  date 
that  the  hikkurim  are  invariably  associated  in  the  legal  texts 
(compare  Ex.  xxiii.  16,  19;  xxxiv.  22,  26;  Num.  xxxiii.  26). 
No  attempt  to  divide  into  different  codes  can  alter  this,  for 
the  dating  appears  equally  in  passages  that  are  assigned  to 
the  earliest  and  to  the  latest  stage. 

Secondly,  as  to  the  preparation  and  treatment.  Reshith 
was  offered  raw,  hikkurim  were  cooked:  reshith  could  not 
constitute  a  meal-offering,  hikkurim  could  and  did.  We  see 
this  clearly  in  Leviticus  xxiii.  10-20,  where  an  omer  (either 
sheaf  or  measure)  of  reshith  is  waved,  while  hikkurim  are 
offered  in  the  form  of  a  meal-offering,  loaves  made  of  flour. 
We  see  it  not  less  clearly  in  Leviticus  ii.  11-16.  The  two 
earlier  verses  (11  f.)  make  it  plain  that  reshith  could  not  come 
up  for  a  sweet  savor  on  the  altar :  while  in  verses  14—16 
hikkurim  are  constituents  of  an  offering  made  by  fire.  Note, 
too,  that  hikkurim  are  "  parched  with  fire,  bruised  corn  of 
the  first  ear,"  while  reshith  was  not  treated  in  any  way,  as 
appears  from  the  fact  that  honey  could  be  offered  as  reshith. 


296  Pentateuchal  Studies 

Thirdly,  as  to  the  materials.  Reshifh  is  applied  to  oil, 
wine,  corn,  wool,  fruits  of  the  ground,  honey,  leaven,  and 
dough  (or  meal?):'^  bikkurim  in  the  legal  texts  relates  only 
to  that  "  which  thou  sowest  in  the  field."  ^  But  even  here  it 
must  be  obvious  that  the  reshith  of  cereals  offered  raw  seven 
weeks  before  the  beginning  of  wheat  harvest  was  really  a  differ- 
ent material  to  bikkurim  oft'ered  at  the  opening  of  the  harvest 
as  loaves  or  parched  corn.  Of  the  perfect  distinctness  of  the 
two  offerings  throughout  the  Mosaic  legislation  there  can  be 
no  reasonable  doubt.  It  may  be  added  that  this  fixes  the 
meaning  of  Exodus  xxii.  38  (39),  which  is  rendered  literally, 
"  thy  fullness  and  thy  tear  thou  shalt  not  delay."  Such  terms 
could  not  apply  to  bikkurim  of  that  which  was  sown  in  the 
ground.  These  latter  are  enjoined  in  Exodus  xxiii.  16,  19  ; 
and  consequently  it  will  be  seen  that  we  find  both  offerings 
side  by  side  in  the  so-called  Book  of  the  Covenant. 

If  now  we  turn  to  vegetable  tithes,  with  which  Wellhausen 
supposes  the  first-fruits  to  be  at  bottom  identical,  we  shall 
see  that  these  are  differentiated  from  both  reshith  and 
bikkurim  with  the  utmost  clearness. 

First,  as  to  date.  We  have  seen  that  bikkurim  were  offered 
at  the  opening  of  the  harvest,  and  reshith  of  wheat  seven 
weeks  previously.  Now  of  tithes  we  read :  "  thou  shalt  surely 
tithe  all  the  increase  of  thy  seed,  that  which  cometh  forth  of 
the  field  year  by  year.  And  thou  shalt  eat  before  the  Lord 
the  tithe  of  thy  corn,  of  thy  wine,  and  of  thine  oil," 

'See  Lev.  ii.  11  f. ;  Num.  xv.  17-21;  xviil.  12;  Deut.  xviii.  4;  xxvi. 
1-10. 

°  It  is  otherwise  in  Numbers  xiii.  20,  where,  however,  the  Samari- 
tan text  has  a  different  word  and  in  Nehemiah  x.  3G  (35),  where  the 
word  is  applied  to  the  fruit  of  trees.  This  is  only  one  more  proof 
of  the  wide  difference  of  date  between  the  Pentateuch  and  the 
post-exilic  period  and  the  frequent  misapprehensions  of  the  true 
meaning  of  the  laws  alter  the  exile. 


Fifth  Chapter  of  Wellhausen's  Prolegomena         297 

etc.  (Deut.  xiv.  22  f.).  Those  were  not  operations  that  it 
lay  within  human  power  to  perform  at  the  beginning  of  the 
wheat  harvest  —  still  less  seven  weeks  previously.  Harvest- 
ing must  have  been  completed  before  this  command  could  be 
executed. 

Secondly,  as  to  preparation  and  treatment.  For  the  pres- 
ent purpose  it  is  sufficient  to  draw  attention  to  Deuteronomy 
xiv.  23  ff.  and  xxvi.  In  the  former  of  those  two  passages 
the  tithe  is  regarded  as  the  material  of  a  festive  meal,  and 
also  as  something  that  might,  if  necessary,  be  sold  and 
turned  into  money  before  being  utilized.  In  the  latter  it 
forms  the  material  for  a  meal  for  the  Levites,  etc.,  con- 
sumed locally.  It  need  scarcely  be  said  that  these  provisions 
are  in  glaring  contrast  with  what  we  have  seen  as  to  reshith 
and  bikkurim.  In  the  case  of  the  tithes  there  is  neither  wave- 
offering  nor  meal-ofTering.  The  bulk,  too,  differentiates  tithes 
very  sharply :  for  the  provisions  as  to  reshith  and  bikkurim 
obviously  relate  to  small  quantities. 

Thirdly,  as  to  material.  "  The  tithe  of  thy  corn,  of  thy 
wine,  and  of  thine  oil  "  necessarily  includes  much  that  could 
not  fall  within  the  conception  of  bikkurim  of  that  which  thou 
sowest  in  the  field.  Again,  in  the  case  of  the  corn  —  the 
only  common  material  —  we  have  to  remember  that  the  dif- 
ference of  date  between  the  beginning  and  the  end  of  the 
harvest  would  count  for  something.  As  to  reshith  we  have 
already  observed  that  the  offering  of  corn  was  made  seven 
weeks  before  the  harvest  opened,  so  that  no  confusion  was 
possible  here.  It  is  true  that  in  one  passage  we  have  reshith 
of  wine  and  oil  as  well  as  of  corn,  but  here  the  same  prin- 
ciple applies.  All  offerings  of  reshith  were  (as  the  name 
itself  implies)  made  of  the  first  produce  that  came  to  hand. 
Tithes,   on   the   other   hand,    were   necessarily    dependent   on 


298  Pcntatcnchal  Studies 

the  ingathering  of  the  whole  of  the  produce.  In  other  words, 
the  two  offerings  mark  respectively  the  opening  and  the  close 
of  the   agricultural   season. 

Once  these  distinctions  are  clearly  grasped,  it  will  be  seen 
that  it  is  sheer  nonsense  to  speak  of  reshith  as  being  taken 
from  the  tithe.  One  might  as  well  say  that  January  is  taken 
from  December.  But  one  other  point  remains  for  considera- 
tion. Why  is  it  that  the  vegetable  tithe  is  not  mentioned  in 
the  Book  of  the  Covenant  ?  No  certain  answer  can  of  course 
be  given,  but  it  is  to  be  remembered  that  the  practice  of 
tithing  had  been  instituted  long  before  the  Mosaic  age.  It 
was  Jacob,  not  Moses,  who  vowed  to  God  a  tithe  of  all  that 
he  should  give  him  (Gen.  xxviii.  22).  No  doubt  the  custom 
applied  in  the  first  instance,  chiefly  at  any  rate,  to  cattle  — 
the  main  source  of  the  patriarch's  wealth  —  but  the  exten- 
sion to  crops  was  so  natural  that  it  may  not  have  been  felt 
necessary  to  incorporate  any  reference  to  the  matter  in  the 
Book  of  the  Covenant.  First-fruits,  on  the  other  hand,  were 
probably  introduced  into  the  religion  of  Israel  for  the  first 
time  by  the  provisions  of  Exodus.  There  is  no  ground  for 
supposing  that  they  were  offered  to  Israel's  God  in  patri- 
archal times,  though  of  course  the  idea  of  an  offering  of 
first-fruits  is  common  enough  in  other  religions  all  the 
world   over. 

What  has  been  said  of  pre-Mosaic  tithing  disposes  of  Well- 

hausen's  trouble  as  to  animal  tithes. 

"  It  is  absolutely  astounding  that  the  tithe  which  in  its  proper 
nature  should  apply  only  to  products  of  definite  measure,  such  as 
corn  and  wine  and  oil  (Deut.  xiv.  23),  comes  to  be  extended  in 
the  Priestly  Code  to  cattle  also,  so  that  besides  the  male  firstling, 
every  tenth  head  of  cattle  and  of  sheep  must  also  be  paid  to  the 
priests.  This  demand  ....  first  occurs  as  a  novel  in  Lev.  xxvii. 
32   (1  Sam.  viii.  17)"   (p.  157). 

In   point   of   fact   the   animal   tithe   dated   from   the   time    of 


Fifth  Chaffer  of   IVellhauscns  Prolegomena         299 

Jacob.  The  animals  were  not  to  be  given  to  the  priests,  nor 
is  there  any  command  to  bring  them  to  the  reHgious  capital: 
and  the  provisions  of  Leviticus  xxvii.  33  merely  provide  for 
the  animals  being  "  holy,"  and  not  being  redeemed.  A 
"  holy  "  animal  was  withdrawn  from  ordinary  use  and  sac- 
rificed. In  the  absence  of  any  command  to  bring  it  to  the 
capital  it  could  presumably  be  sacrificed  locally  in  the  pre- 
exilic  period  at  lay  altars  of  earth  or  unhewn  stone. 

With  regard  to  vegetable  tithes  I  have  treated  of  these 
elsewhere,^  and  will  not  here  repeat  myself. 

There  is  but  one  other  point  to  notice  in  this  division  of 
the  chapter.  On  page  159  we  read:  "there  is  a  poll-tax, 
which  is  not  indeed  enjoined  in  the  body  of  the  Priestly  Code, 
but  which  from  the  time  of  Nehemiah  x.  33  [32]  was  paid 
at  the  rate  of  a  third  of  a  shekel,  till  a  novel  of  the  law 
(Exod.  XXX.  15)  raised  it  to  half  a  shekel."  As  I  have  shown 
before,  Exodus  deals  only  with  the  census,  the  half  shekel 
being  a  ransom ;  and,  consequently,  in  its  original  meaning 
the  passage  has  nothing  on  earth  to  do  with  any  annual  poll- 
tax  (which  was  quite  independent  of  any  census).  Here 
again  interpretations  and  inferences  designed  to  meet  post- 
exilic  needs  cannot  override  the  plain  meaning  of  the  law 
in   a  historical   inquiry. 

II. 

In  discussing  the  question  of  land  it  will  be  best  to  begin 
by  noting  the  influence  of  one  of  our  old  friends  —  the  con- 
fusion between  the  two  kinds  of  altars. 

"Originally  the  altars  were  asylums  (Exod.  xxi.  14;  1  Kings  ii. 
28),  some  in  a  higher  degree  than  others  (Exod.  xxi.  13).  In  order 
not  to  abolish  the  asylums  also  along  with  the  altars,  the  Deuter- 

^  Churchman,  September,  1006,  pp.  548  f.,  554  f. ;  cp.  Murray's  Il- 
lustrated Bible  Dictionarj',  s.  v.  "  tithe." 


300  Pentateuchal  Studies 

onomic  legislator  desired  that  certain  toly  places  should  continue 
as  places  of  refuge.  .  .  .  The  Priestly  Code  adopts  the  arrange- 
ment. .  .  .  But  as  all  these  asylums  are  at  the  same  time  priestly 
and  Levitical  cities,  it  is  an  obvious  conjecture  that  these  also  in 
like  manner  arose  out  of  old  sanctuaries"    (p.  162). 

Mark  how  subtly  the  confusion  has  here  done  its  work.  Ig- 
nore the  distinction  between  the  hornless  lay  altars  of  Exo- 
dus XX.  24—26  and  the  single  lawful  horned  altar  of  the 
religious  capital,  and  the  attributes  of  the  latter  can  be 
attributed  to  the  former.  Then  every  lay  altar  of  which 
we  read  becomes  an  asylum,  and  a  wonderful  piece  of  his- 
tory that  never  happened  can  be  constructed  on  this  founda- 
tion. Yet  1  Kings  ii.  28,  with  its  reference  to  the  horns, 
shows  guite  clearly  what  contemporaries  understood,  and 
proves  that  such  altars  as  those  of  Exodus  xx.  2-^26  could 
not  give  asylum :  for  no  partisan  of  Wellhausen  has  yet  been 
able  to  show  how  either  loose  earth  or  stone  that  would  be 
defiled  by  the  swinging  of  a  tool  on  it  could  without  such 
defilement  be  made  to  yield  horns.  With  regard  to  Exodus 
xxi.  13  f.  the  meaning  is  plain  enough.  The  murderer  was 
to  be  taken  —  as  Joab  was  —  even  from  the  altar  of  the 
religious  center:  the  homicide  who  was  merely  guilty  of 
something  like  manslaughter  was  to  have  appointed  for  him 
(as  actually  happens  in  Numbers  and  Deuteronomy)  a  place 
of  refuge.  It  is  at  this  that  2  Samuel  xiv.  14  glances.  The 
idea  that  the  Deuteronomic  legislator  desired  something  "  in 
order  not  to  abolish  the  asylums  also  along  with  the  altars  " 
is  due  to  the  failure  to  discriminate  between  objects  which 
no  eye-witness  could  possibly  have  confused. 

Turning  now  to  the  other  points  in  order,  we  find  that 
Wellhausen  first  objects  that,  in  a  mountainous  country  like 
Palestine,  the  land  could  not  be  geometrically  portioned  oflf 
in    the   method    contemplated   by    Numbers    xxxv.    (p.    159). 


Fifth  Chapter  of   Wcllhausens  Prolegomena         301 

Here  the  answer  of  Van  Hoonacker  is  extremely  able  and 
convincing- :  "  As  to  the  way  in  which  the  measurements  were 
to  be  carried  out  in  the  mountainous  country  of  Palestine, 
the  legislator  doubtless  knew  what  method  was  usually  em- 
ployed. Besides  we  are  free  to  believe  that  he  only  gives 
these  figures  as  approximate  indications."  ^  Wellhausen  next 
raises  the  .following  objection: — 

" .  .  .  .  Besides,  from  the  time  of  Joshua  there  is  not  a  historical 
trace  of  the  existence  of  the  Levitical  cities.  Quite  a  number  of 
them  were  in  the  days  of  the  judges  and  down  to  the  early  mon- 
archy still  in  the  hands  of  the  Canaanites,  —  Gibeon,  Shechem, 
Gezer,  Taanach ;  some  perhaps  may  even  have  so  continued  per- 
manently. Those  on  the  other  hand  which  passed  into  possession 
of  the  Israelites  at  no  time  belonged  to  the  Levites.  Shechem, 
Hebron,  Ramoth,  were  the  capital  cities  of  Ephraim,  Judah,  and 
Gilead :  and  Gibeon,  Gezer,  He^hbon  wex'e  in  like  manner  impor- 
tant but  by  no  means  ecclesiastical  towns.  In  the  Deuteronomic 
period  the  Levites  were  scattered  throughout  Judah  in  such  a 
manner  that  each  locality  had  its  own  Levites  or  Levite ;  nowhere 
did  they  live  separated  from  the  rest  of  the  world  in  compact 
masses  together,  for  they  made  their  living  by  sacrificing  for  oth- 
ers, and  without  a  community  they  could  not  exercise  their  call- 
ing. Some  indeed  possessed  land  and  heritage;  such  were  at  an 
earlier  period  the  Silonic  family  at  Gibeath-Phineas,  Amaziah  at 
Bethel,  and  Abiathar  at  Anathoth,  and  at  a  later  period  Jere- 
miah, also  at  Anathoth.  But  Anathoth  (for  example)  was  not  on 
that  account  a  priestly  city  in  the  sense  of  Josh.  xxi. ;  Jeremiah 
had  his  holding  there  as  a  citizen  and  not  as  a  priest,  and  he 
shared  not  with  the  priests  but  with  the  people  (xxxvii.  12).  As  a 
tribe  Levi  was  distinguished  from  the  other  tribes  precisely  by 
holding  no  land,  and  its  members  joined  themselves  to  the  settled 
citizens  and  peasants,  for  the  most  part  as  dependent  inmates 
(Deut.  X.  9,  xviii.  1)"   (p.  160). 

In  reply,  the  first  point  to  note  is  that  there  are  traces  of 
Levitical  cities  in  the  history.  Amaziah  of  Bethel  falls  out 
of  account  because,  as  we  are  told  in  1  Kings  xii.  31,  Jero- 
boam had  made  priests  of  non-Levitical  families.  But 
Anathoth  is  an  absolutely  clear  case  (1  Kings  ii.  26;  Jer. 
^  Sacerdoce   levitique,  p.  433. 


302  Pentateuchal  Studies 

i.  1;  xxxii.),  and  the  fact  that  after  an  invasion  we  find 
that  Jeremiah  is  stated  to  have  gone  forth  to  receive  his 
portion  in  the  midst  of  the  people  in  no  wise  affects  its  im- 
portance. What  precisely  the  phrase  refers  to  —  whether 
the  reclaiming-  of  the  patrimonial  property  at  Anathoth  or  the 
obtaining  of  some  land  that  had  been  rendered  vacant  by 
the  invasion  —  is  not  perhaps  as  clear  as  it  might  be.  But  it 
is  plain  from  the  other  passages  that,  before  this  invasion, 
priests,  who,  on  the  Wellhausen  theory,  should  have  been 
entirely  landless,  in  fact  owned  land  at  Anathoth.  Jeremiah 
i.,  with  its  reference  to  the  priests  that  were  at  Anathoth,  is 
particularly  important  from  this  point  of  view.  The  plural 
"  priests  "  shows  that  we  are  not  dealing  with  the  case  of 
a  single  individual.  Similarly  with  Beth-shemesh.  In  1  Sam- 
uel vi.  13-15  we  have  the  clearest  indications  of  the  presence 
of  Levites.^  Again,  in  3  Samuel  xx.  2G,  Jattirite  appears  to 
be  the  right  reading,  and  the  fact  that  David  had  a  Jattirite 
as  priest  points  to  his  Levitical  origin. - 

Thus  we  have  traces  in  the  history  of  three  Levitical  cities. 
Further,  Deuteronomy  itself  recognizes  patrimonial  prop- 
erty on  the  part  of  the  Levites;  for  it  expressly  speaks  of 
this  (xviii.  8  )  and  sees  in  it  nothing  inconsistent  with  the 
fact  that  Levi  had  no  portion  or  inheritance,  i.e.  no  proper 
tribal  lot.  It  seems  tolerably  obvious  that  if  Deuteronomy 
regards  the  two  things  as  consistent,  there  can  be  no  reason 
why  other  parts  of  the  Pentateuch  should  not  do  the  same. 
In  point  of  fact,  the  total  area  of  the  whole  forty-eight  cities 
would  have  amounted  to  less  than  sixteen  miles.  When  we 
remember  that  the  family  of  Aaron  alone  received  thirteen 
out   of  the   forty-eight,   it   will   appear   that   the     remaining 

^  On  tlio  text,  see  supra,  pp.  2(')G  f . 

=  On  the   wliole  sultjoct,   see  .s»/>r«.   No.   20,   p.   2(!1.  niul  jHissiin. 


Fifth   Chapter  of   JVcllhauscn's  Prolegomena         303 

thirty-five  did  not  form  a  very  extensive  territory  for  a 
whole  tribe.  Of  the  question  of  the  diffusion  of  the  Levites 
it  is  not  necessary  to  speak  here,  for  this  was  discussed  at 
sufficient  length  in  the  article  "  Priests  and  Levites." 

On  the  other  hand,  one  true  point  is  made  in  the  above 
extract.  It  is  the  case  that  at  sundry  periods  of  history  some 
of  the  Levitical  cities  were  not  in  Levitical  possession.  No 
doubt,  in  the  confused  period  from  the  invasion  to  the  con- 
solidation of  the  national  power  under  the  monarchy,  much 
occurred  of  which  we  have  no  record.  Probably  some  of  the 
cities  were  not  conquered  in  the  first  instance ;  but  it  is  also 
quite  possible  that,  during  the  course  of  the  struggles  in  the 
time  of  the  Judges,  some  cities  may  have  changed  hands. 
That  the  law  was  ever  carried  out  in  its  entirety  does  not 
seem  likely :  that  it  was  put  into  operation  to  some  extent  ap- 
pears to  be  beyond  dispute.  The  quantum  of  disobedience 
must  remain  uncertain,  because  our  data  are  insufficient ;  but 
yet  there  is  one  other  consideration  to  which  attention  should 
be  drawn  in  this  connection  —  I  mean  the  evidence  that  some 
of  these  places  were  centers  of  worship.  The  great  high  place 
at  Gibeon  provides  a  ready  example  (1  Kings  iii.  4).  It 
can  scarcely  be  supposed  by  anybody  that  this  was  unserved 
by  priests.  It  is  not  necessary  to  discuss  the  Levitical  char- 
acter of  the  priesthood  once  more :  that  was  fully  considered 
in  the  article  "  Priests  and  Levites,"  to  which  reference  has 
already  been  made  so  often. 

On  the  other  hand,  Wellhausen's  conjecture  that  all  the 
Levitical  cities  were  ancient  sanctuaries  (p.  162)  suggests 
two  more  probable  conjectures.  One  is  that  in  some  cases 
such  cities  might  have  been  assigned  to  the  Levites  in  the 
hope  that  members  of  the  tribe  which  was  most  intimately 
associated  with  the  worship  of  Israel's  God  would  prove  the 


304  Pentateiichai  Studies 

most  efficient  guardians  of  the  purity  of  religion  in  towns 
where  the  ancient  associations  rendered  it  particularly  liable 
to  danger.  The  other  is  that  at  times  when  confused  political 
circumstances  made  the  lawful  pilgrimage  difficult  or  impos- 
sible it  would  be  just  these  very  Levites  who  as  hereditary 
priests  would  feel  the  strongest  temptation  to  practise  their 
professional  craft  at  local  centers.  But  it  must  be  realized 
that  these  are  mere  conjectures,  and  that  the  paucity  of  our 
materials  makes  it  impossible  to  speak  with  any  certainty  on 
such  points. 

To  return  to  our  analysis  of  Wellhausen's  theories.  He 
writes : — 

" ....  it  [i.e.  ttie  execution  of  the  law.  H.  M.  W.]  was  not  in 
trutli  within  the  power  of  man,  and  cannot  be  seriously  demanded 
in  the  Priestly  Code  itself,  which  contemplates  a  purely  ideal 
Israel,  with  ideal  boundaries,  and  leaves  the  sober  reality  so  far 
out  of  sight  that  on  archaeological  grounds  it  never  once  so  much 
as  mentions  Jerusalem,  the  historical  capital  of  the  priests " 
(p.  160). 

Now  here  we  have  another  piece  of  confused  thinking. 
Wellhausen  has  failed  to  understand  the  difference  between  a 
priestly  city  (in  which  priests  have  certain  special  rights  of 
property)  and  a  city  in  which  priests  happen  to  dwell.  There 
are  Jewish  priests  to-day  in,  e.g.,  London,  Paris,  New  York. 
Some  of  them  may  even  own  houses,  etc.,  in  these  places; 
but  that  does  not  make  these  cities  priestly  cities.  And  so 
it  was  with  Jerusalem.  It  was  undoubtedly  the  religious 
capital,  but  it  never  was  a  priestly  city  in  the  same  sense  as. 
e.g.,  Anathoth.  This,  therefore,  provides  no  argument  what- 
ever in  favor  of  the  Wellhausen  theory. 

Lastly,  Wellhausen  thinks  that  "  the  immediate  starting- 
point for  this  territorial  donation  to  the  Levites  is  per- 
haps to  be  sought  in  Ezekiel,  in  the  picture  of  the  future 


Fifth  Chapter  of   JVcllhaiiscn's  Prolegomena         305 

Israel  which  he  draws  at  the  close  of  his  book"  (pp.  162  f.). 
And  he  proceeds  to  discuss  the  prophet's  land  scheme.  Here 
Van  Hoonacker's  brilliant  and  convincing  reply  must  be 
quoted : — ■ 

"  Strictly  we  could  ask  ....  whether  Ezekiel  did  not  found  him- 
self on  ttie  description  of  the  camp  of  the  Israelites  in  the  desert. 
It  is  only  too  manifest  that  the  division  and  apportionment  of  the 
territory  as  presented  in  ch.  xlviii.  of  the  prophet  are  scarcely  in- 
spired by  practical  necessities,  that  they  have  a  very  pronounced 
character  of  ideal  vision;  and  as  'no  fancy  is  pure  fancy '^  we 
ought  also  to  find  the  elements  which  are  at  the  basis  of  Ezekiel's 
vision.  The  tents  of  the  tribe  of  Levi  ranged  around  the  taber- 
nacle explain  themselves  in  the  priestly  code ;  we  may  doubt 
whether  the  Levites,  deprived  of  territory  (Ezk.  xliv.  28)  and 
nevertheless  grouped  on  a  common  territory,  in  the  conditions  de- 
scribed in  Ezk.  xlviii.  explain  themselves  with  equal  facility.  A 
camp  is  readily  conceived  on  the  pattern  of  a  chessboard,  but  not 
the  country  of  Canaan.  We  need  not  stop  there.  It  is  in  fact  cer- 
tain that  Ezekiel  here  has  in  view  the  protection  of  the  holiness 
of  the  temple  from  all  profanation ;  and  in  the  realm  of  the  ideal, 
the  means  are  appropriate  to  the  end."  ^ 

Thus  in  this  chapter,  as  elsewhere,  Wellhausen's  theories 
of  historical  reconstruction  are  seen  to  be  of  the  most  base- 
less and  impossible  character. 

^  A  quotation  from  Wellhausen ;  see  Prolegomena,  p.  161. 
-  Sacerdoce  levitique,  pp.  425  f. 


XXIII 
THE  LEGISLATIONS  OF  ISRAEL  AND  BABYLONIA 

[A  paper  read  before  the  Victoria  Institute  on  Marcti  15,  1909.] 

In  the  year  1902,  M.  de  Morgan  discovered  a  black  diorite 
stele  on  which  were  inscribed  "  the  judgments  of  righteous- 
ness which  Hammurabi  the  mighty  king  confirmed."  Some 
thirty-five  sections  had  been  erased,  apparently  with  a  view 
to  engraving  a  fresh  inscription  on  the  portion  of  the  monu- 
ment they  occupied,  but  the  rest  of  the  Code  was  practically 
intact.  While  there  are  many  points  in  the  translation, 
history,  and  interpretation  on  which  uncertainty  must  long 
prevail,  we  have  sufficient  materials  to  form  some  general 
conceptions  of  the  legal  civilization  of  the  subjects  of  "  the 
mighty  king." 

The  subject-matter  of  jural  laws  is  human  life  in  its  social 
aspect.  It  deals  with  the  acts  and  omissions  of  human  beings 
in  their  relation  to  one  another;  and,  as  a  necessary  result, 
the  influences  that  mold  any  given  legislation  are  both  mani- 
fold and  diverse.  Nowhere  does  the  student  realize  more 
vividly  that  the  roots  of  the  present  lie  deep  in  the  past ;  and, 
accordingly,  the  first  task  in  taking  a  general  view  of  the 
Babylonian  code  must  be  to  distinguish  the  primitive  ideas 
that  Hammurabi  and  his  contemporaries  brought  from  a  re- 
mote past.  We  must  next  consider  the  geographical  and  other 
conditions  of  their  task,  the  means  of  which  they  could  dis- 
pose, the  nature  of  the  problem  with  which  they  were  faced, 
the  state  of  mental  development  to  which  they  had  attained; 
and  we  shall  then  be  in  a  position  to  form  some  conception 

30(i 


The  Legislations  of  Israel  and  Babylonia  307 

of  their  views  and  policy.  In  other  words,  we  must  glance 
successively  at  the  Ideas  the  nation  had  inherited  from  its 
Infancy,  at  its  Geographical  Environment  and  Historical 
Circumstances,  at  the  Conditions  and  Tasks  of  its  Daily  Life, 
and  at  the  Quality  and  Development  of  its  Intellect.  Only 
when  that  is  done  can  we  hope  to  see  something  of  its  Soul. 
In  the  case  of  the  Babylonian  code,  the  occupations  of  the 
people  and  its  history  were  almost 'entirely  determined  by  the 
geography,  and  can,  for  the  most  part,  be  dealt  with  under 
that  head. 

In  dealing  with  the  historical  portion  of  our  subject,  noth- 
ing is  possible,  in  the  present  condition  of  our  knowledge, 
beyond  a  few  generalities.  The  legal  antecedents  of  the 
Code  are  too  largely  unknown,  and  it  would  be  quite  impossi- 
ble to  attempt  to  separate  the  elements  that  are  due  to  the 
Sumerians  from  those  contributed  by  the  Babylonians.  But 
we  have  seven  sections  belonging  to  some  Sumerian  legisla- 
tion, and  these  are  sufficient  to  show  that  the  Code  of  Ham- 
murabi merely  represents  a  particular  stage  in  an  orderly 
historical  evolution.  Thus  we  read  in  the  Sumerian  laws: 
"  If  a  wife  hates  her  husband,  and  has  said,  '  You  are  not 
my  husband,'  one  shall  throw  her  into  the  river."  ^  This  pen- 
alty of  throwing  into  the  river  remains  in  the  case  of  the 
undutiful  wife  of  Hammurabi's  Code,-  though  there  the  law 
is  somewhat  more  elaborate,  and  testifies  to  more  advanced 
legal  reflection.  Evidently  the  two  enactments  rest  on  the 
same  theory  of  punishment.  Again,  the  Sumerian  laws  pro- 
vide that,  "  if  a  husband  has  said  to  his  wife,  '  You  are  not 

^  Johns.  Babylonian  and  Assyrian  Laws,  p.  42. 

^ "  If  she  has  not  been  economical  but  a  goer  about,  has  wasted 
her  house,  has  belittled  her  husband,  one  shall  throw  that  woman 
into  the  waters"    (sect.  143). 


308  Pentatenchal  Studies 

my  wife/  he  shall  pay  half  a  mina  of  silver."  ^  Precisely  the 
same  idea  of  compensating  the  wife  for  a  divorce  reappears 
in  the  Code  ;  but  there  the  amount  is  either  a  sum  equal  to 
the  bride-price  or,  if  there  was  no  bride-price,  one  mina  in 
the  case  of  well-to-do  persons,  one-third  of  a  mina  in  the  case 
of  a  plebeian  (sects.  138-140).  The  fundamental  principle 
is  identical,  but  social  inequalities  have  led  to  some  differen- 
tiation in  detail. 

But  if  our  present  knowledge  of  Babylonian  history  ena- 
bles us  to  do  little  to  trace  the  antecedents  of  the  Code,  the 
same  cannot  be  said  of  the  comparative  method.  A  few  exam- 
ples will  show  how  this  elucidates  the  provisions  of  the  legis- 
lation, and  illuminates  their  Vorgcschichte. 

"There  is  no  system  of  recorded  law," 'wrote  Sir  Henry 
Maine,  "  literally  from  China  to  Peru,  which,  when  it  first 
emerges  into  notice,  is  not  seen  to  be  entangled  with  religious 
ritual  and  observance."  -  The  Code  of  Hammurabi,  to  a  very 
great  extent,  belongs  to  a  later  stag-e  of  development  than 
that  contemplated  in  this  dictum  ;  and  this,  by  itself,  is  suffi- 
cient to  mark  it  as  a  fairly  mature  system.  Yet  slight  remains  of 
the  earlier  state  of  affairs  may  be  traced  in  provisions  for  or- 
deals (sects.  2,  132),  and  oaths  as  methods  of  proof  (sects. 
20.  23,  103,  120,  206,  etc.).  In  such  cases  this  survival  from 
ancient  ideas  has.  however,  been  worked  into  the  system  to 
fulfil  a  definite  purpose.  There  are  parallels  all  the  world 
over,  but  perhaps  the  best  short  explanation  that  can  be  quoted 
is  to  be  found  in  a  few  paragraphs  of  the  late  Indian  law- 
book known  as  "  Narada."  Here  the  principle  underlying  the 
supernatural  methods  of  trials  and  the  object  of  their  reten- 
tion in  relatively  late  times  are  very  clearly  brought  out: — 

^Op.  cit.,  p.  42. 

*  Early  Law  and  Custom,  p.  75. 


The  Legislations  of  Israel  and  Babylonia  309 

"28.  Proof  is  said  to  be  of  two  liinds,  human  and  divine.  Hu- 
man proof  consists  of  documentary  and  oral  evidence.  By  divine 
proof  is  meant  tlie  ordeal  by  balance  and  the  other  (modes  of 
divine  test).  29.  Where  a  transaction  has  taken  place  by  day,  in  a 
village  or  town,  or  in  the  presence  of  witnesses,  divine  test  is  not 
applicable.  30.  Divine  test  is  applicable  (where  the  transaction  has 
taken  place)  in  a  solitary  forest,  at  night,  or  in  the  interior  of  a 
lious«,  and  in  cases  of  violence,  or  of  denial  of  a  deposit."  ^ 

On  paragraph  29,  Asahaya,  a  standard  Indian  commentator, 
remarks :  "  In  the  case  of  all  those  transactions  which  take 
place  during  daytime,  eye-  and  ear-witnesses  are  present.  Doc- 
umentary evidence,  likewise,  is  generally  available  in  such 
cases.  Therefore,  divine  proofs  should  not  be  resorted  to. 
Where  a  transaction  is  known  to  have  taken  place  in  the  pres- 
ence of  witnesses,  divine  proof  is  also  not  applicable."  Simi- 
larly, on  paragraph  30,  he  writes :  *'  In  all  the  places  and 
occasions  mentioned  in  this  paragraph  human  proof  is  not 
applicable,  wherefore  divine  test  has  to  be  resorted  to." 

The  sections  of  the  Hammurabi  Code  conform  to  these 
principles. 

More  important  for  our  present  subject  are  the  conceptions 
of  talion.  sympathetic  talion,  and  so  on.  The  idea  of  talion 
is  world-wide.  The  wrong-doer  is  to  suffer  precisely  the 
same  injury  as  he  has  inflicted.  It  belongs  to  primitive  ideas; 
and,  as  society  advances,  it  is  always  mitigated,  in  whole  or 
in  part,  by  some  system  of  pecuniary  compensation.  Very 
frequently,  distinctions  are  drawn  between  the  members  of 
different  classes,  and  for  our  ultimate  purposes  it  is  important 
to  note  that  this  is  the  case  with  Hammurabi.  For  instance, 
we  read : — 

"  If  a  man  has  caused  the  loss  of  a  gentleman's  eye,  one  shall 
cause  his  eye  to  be  lost. 

"  If  he  has  shattered  a  gentleman's  limb,  one  shall  shatter  his 
limb. 

'  Narada,   Introduction,  ii.  28-30. 


310  Pcntatcnchal  Studies 

"  If  he  has  caused  a  poor  man  to  lose  his  eye  or  shattered  a 
poor  man's  limb,  he  shall  pay  one  mina  of  silver"  (sects.  196-198). 

Such  rules  not  onl}'  show  us  the  principle  of  talion  in  full 
operation,  they  also  point  very  clearly  to  the  division  of  the 
people  into  well-marked  social  strata,  and  to  the  conception 
of  justice  that  such  divisions  had  fostered.  But  while  there 
is  nothing  uncommon  in  these  provisions,  the  same  cannot 
be  said  of  the  provisions  for  slaying  the  child  of  a  guilty  or 
negligent  parent  for  the  parent's  offense.     For  example : — 

"  If  a  builder  has  built  a  house  for  a  man,  and  has  not  made 
strong  his  work,  and  the  house  he  built  has  fallen,  and  he  has 
caused  the  death  of  the  owner  of  the  house,  that  builder  shall  be 
put  to  death. 

"  If  he  has  caused  the  son  of  the  owner  of  the  house  to  die,  one 
shall  put  to  death  the  son  of  that  builder"   (sects.  229  ff.). 

These  enactments  are  believed  to  be  unique,  and  it  will  be 
necessary  to  return  to  them  when  we  consider  the  mental 
element  in  the  legislation.  For  the  moment  we  are  concerned 
with  them  only  as  showing  that  the  principle  of  talion  was 
retained  to  the  fullest  extent. 

Sympathetic  talion  is  also  much   in  evidence  in  the  Code. 

The  idea  is  sometimes  that  punishment  should  be  inflicted  on 

the  offending  member,  and  sometimes  that  the  instrument  of 

the  offense  should  also  be  the  instrument  of  the  punishment. 

Numerous  examples  come  from  all  over  the  world.    One  of 

those   given   by    Post    is    worth   quoting.      A    German    forest 

ordinance  of  the  year  154fi  provides  that  anybody   felling  a 

tree  shall  have  his  right  hand  hewn  off  with  the  axe  he  used 

in  committing  the  offense.^     Tlere  we  have  both  branches  of 

the  theory  exemplified  simultaneously.     But  more  frequently 

a  legal  rule  illustrates  one  or  other  branch.     Thus  we  find 

^A.  H.  Post,  Gruudriss  der  Et'hnologischen  Jurisprudenz,  vol.  ii. 
p.  239,  note  3. 


The  Legislations  of  Israel  and  Babylonia  311 

Hammnrabi  ordaininj:^-,  e.g".,  that  the  hands  of  a  man  who 
strikes  his  father  shall  be  cut  off  (sect.  195),  while  the  man 
who  comes  to  extinscuish  a  fire,  and  "  lifts  up  his  eyes  to  the 
property  of  the  owner  of  the  house,  and  takes  the  property 
of  the  owner  of  the  house,"  is  to  be  "  thrown  into  that  fire  " 
(sect.  25). 

Other  provisions  that  show  the  influence  of  early. ideas  are 
those  relating  to  theft.  In  treating-  of  the  ordinary  procedure 
in  early  societies  all  over  the  world.  Dr.  Post  writes  as  fol- 
lows : — 

"  He  in  whose  possession  the  stolen  article  is  found  is  prima  faoie 
presumed  to  be  the  thief.  But  if  he  pleads  that  he  had  bought  the 
article  or  had  acquired  it  by  some  other  honest  means  from 
another,  he  must  name  that  other  person  and  conduct  the  owner 
of  the  stolen  property  to  him.  The  person  so  vouched  can  in  turn 
name  another  person  whom  he  vouches  as  his  predecessor  in  title, 
and  so  the  enquiry  proceeds  until  it  ends  with  somebody  who  can- 
not vouch  a  predecessor  in  title.  This  person  is  then  regarded  as 
the  thief.     This  procedure  shows  many  variations  in  detail."  ^ 

Similarly  ,in  Narada  we  read  that  "  wdiere  stolen  g-oods  are 
found  with  a  man,  he  may  be  presumed  to  be  the  thief " 
(xiv.  18).-  It  will  be  observed  that  this  outline  is  reproduced 
in  sections  9  ff.  of  the  Code. 

With  regard  to  the  punishmer.ts  for  theft,  the  Babylonian 
system  conforms  here  also  to  well-knov.n  types.  The  early 
form  of  reniedial  procedure  in  cases  of  theft  is  private  vio- 
lence. When  society  interposes  to  prevent  self-redress  or 
blood-feuds,  it  endeavors  to  bribe  the  ag'g'rieved  party  not 
to  take  the  law  into  his  own  hands. 

"  In  the  infancy  of  society,"  writes  Mr.  Post,  "  it  is  an  important 
object  to  the  legislator  to  induce  an  injured  person  to  have  recourse 
to  the  public  tribunals  instead  of  righting  himself,  that  is  to  say, 

^  Op.  cit.,  vol.  ii.  p.  586. 
''Cp.    vii.    4;    Manu    viii.    201. 


312  Pentateuchal  Studies 

constituting  tiimself  both  lawgiver  and  judge.  That  such  was  really 
the  motive  of  the  legislator  we  have  historic  evidence  in  the  declar- 
ation of  Rotharis,  ruler  of  the  Langobards,  a.d.  643.  He  gives  the 
relatives  of  the  slain  their  election  between  the  primitive  vengeance 
for  blood  (feud  or  vendetta),  and  a  composition  or  pecuniary  fine 
(wergeld  or  poena)  to  be  recovered  by  action  before  the  public 
tribunals.  He  says  that  he  fixes  a  high  fine  in  order  to  induce 
plaintiffs  to  forego  their  right  of  feud;  and  implies  that  he  would 
gladly  have  abolished  the  right  of  feud  or  private  war,  but  felt 
that  it  was  too  deeply  rooted  in  the  habits  of  'his  tribe  to  be  ex- 
tirpated by  legislation."^ 

It  is  probably  in  the  light  of  such  ideas  as  these  that  we 
ought  to  contra5t  the  threefold  restitution  imposed  by  section 
106  on  the  agent  who  takes  his  principal's  money  with  the 
tenfold  restitution  that  is  to  be  exacted  from  the  dishonest 
shepherd  by  section  265.  Probably  the  rule  that  concerns 
the  shepherds  had  its  first  origin  in  a  far  earlier  and  less 
orderly  state  of  society  than  that  which  was  called  upon  to' 
decide  on  pecuniary  transactions  involving  the  relationship 
of  principal  and  agent.  On  the  other  hand,  it  must  be  noted 
that  this  influence  alone  may  be  insufficient  to  account  for  all 
the  penalties  in  cases  of  theft  and  the  allied  subjects.  It  ex- 
plains the  severity  of  the  punishments  for  theft  and  many  of 
the  penalties  involving  manifold  restitution ;  but,  when  we 
read  in  section  107  that  in  the  converse  case  the  dishonest 
principal  is  to  pay  not  a  threefold  but  a  sixfold  penalty  to 
his  agent,  we  seem  to  see  traces  of  a  moral  judgment  on  the 
relative  heinousness  of  offenses  by  principals  against  agents 
and  agents  against  principals.  It  must,  however,  be  noted 
that  this  is  a  question  of  correct  translation. 

In  another  department  of  law  the  Code  exhibits  the  influ- 
ence of  early  ideas  greatly  weakened.  The  patria  potcsias, 
the  absolute  power  of  the  head  of  the  family  over  his  chil- 
1  On  Gaius  ill.  189  ft. 


The  Legislations  of  Israel  and  Babylonia  313 

dren,  has  been  greatly  lessened  and  reduced  by  the  time  of 
Hammurabi.  Yet  there  are  sections  (sects.  1G8  ff.)  dealing 
with  "  cutting  off  from  sonship  "  (a  phrase  as  to  the  meaning 
of  which  it  would  be  unwise  to  hazard  a  guess  without  knowl- 
'edge  of  the  original),  and  with  the  penalties  for  undutiful 
sons  (sects.  192,  193,  195).  There  is,  moreover,  a  section 
(sect.  7)  enacting  that  "  if  a  man  has  bought  from  the  hand 
of  a  man's  son,  or  of  a  man's  slave,  without  witness  or  power 
of  attorney,  or  has  received  the  same  on  deposit,  that  man 
has  acted  the  thief,  he  shall  be  put  to  death."  The  proprie- 
tary restrictions  of  the  Roman  filius  faniilias  in  potestate  are 
at  once  recalled  by  this  section,  though  it  must  be  confessed 
that  this  may  only  be  due  to  the  translation.  The  following 
passages  from  Narada  may,  however,  be  quoted :  "  In  the 
same  way,  the  transactions  of  a  slave  are  declared  invalid, 
unless  they  have  been  sanctioned  by  his  master.  A  slave  is 
not  his  own  master.  If  a  son  has  transacted  any  business 
without  authorization  from  his  father,  it  is  also  declared  an 
invalid  transaction.  A  slave  and  a  son  are  equal  in  that  respect  " 
(i.  29  ff.).  And  again:  ''If  a  man  buys  from  a  slave  who 
has  not  been  authorized  (to  sell)  by  his  master,  or  from  a 
rogue,  or  in  secret,  or  at  a  very  low  price,  or  at  an  improper 
time,  he  is  as  guilty  as  the  seller"  (vii.  3). 

Turning  now  to  the  geographical  influence,  we  may  note 
that  we  are  dealing  with  a  country  of  great  rivers.  Hence  it 
is  natural  to  find  rules  which  are  readily  paralleled  from  the 
river  civilization  of  India.  "  For  a  long  passage,"  says 
Manu,  ■'  the  boat  hire  must  be  proportioned  to  the  places  and 
time."  And  he  adds  a  remark  which  is  characteristic  of  the 
geography  of  his  country:  "Know  that  this  (rule  refers)  to 
(passages  along)  the  banks  of  rivers ;  at  sea  there  is  no 
settled    (freight)"    (viii.   406).      Hammurabi  proportions  his 


314  Pentateuchal  Studies 

boat-hire  to  the  times  and  class  of  vessel.  Characteristically 
enough  he  fixes  the  exact  daily  amount  (sects.  275-277). 
Again,  when  Hammurabi  provides  that  where  a  boatman  has 
been  careless  and  grounded  the  ship,  or  has  caused  what  is 
in  her  to  be  lost,  he  shall  render  back  the  ship  which  he  has 
grounded  and  whatever  in  her  he  has  caused  to  be  lost  (sect. 
237),  we  may  compare  Manu :  "Whatever  ma'y  be  damaged 
in  a  boat  by  the  fault  of  the  boatmen,  that  shall  be  made 
good  by  the  boatmen  collectively  (each  paying)  his  share. 
This  decision  in  suits  (brought)  by  passengers  (holds  good 
only)  in  case  the  boatmen  are  culpably  negligent  on  the  wa- 
ter; in  case  of  (an  accident)  caused  by  (the  will  of)  the  gods, 
no  fine  can  be  (inflicted  on  them)"  (viii.  408^09).  In  this 
passage,  "  whatever "  is  referred  by  some  commentators  to 
"  merchandise,"  by  others  to  "  luggage." 

The  geography  of  the  country  must  be  held  responsible  for 
other  provisions. 

"  On  Hammurabi's  accession,"  says  Mr.  King,  "  he  first  devoted 
himself  to  the  internal  improvement  of  his  territory.  In  the  past 
both  Babylon  and  Sippar  had  suffered  from  floods,  and  the  recur- 
rence of  these  he  sought  to  diminish  by  erecting  dams  and  cutting 
canals."  ^ 

"  It  was  an  alluvial  plain,"  Professor  Sayce  writes  of  the  coun- 
try, "  sloping  towards  the  sea  and  inundated  by  the  overflow  of 
the  two  great  rivers  which  ran  through  it.  When  cultivated  it 
was  exceedingly  fertile,  but  cultivation  implied  a  careful  regulation 
of  the  overflow,  as  well  as  a  constant  attention  to  the  embank- 
ments which  kept  out  the  waters,  or  to  the  canals  which  drained 
and  watered  the  soil. 

"The  inhabitants  were,  therefore,  necessarily  agriculturists.  They 
were  also  irrigators  and  engineers,  compelled  to  study  how  best 
to  regulate  the  supply  of  water,  to  turn  the  pestiferous  marsh 
into  a  fruitful  field,  and  to  confine  the  rivers  and  canals  within 
their  channel.  Agriculture  and  engineering  thus  had  their  natural 
home  in  Babylonia,  and  originated  in  the  character  of  the  country 
Itself.  The  neighborhood  of  the  sea  and  the  two  great  waterways 
^  Encycloptedia   Biblica,    col.   445. 


The  Legislations  of  Israel  and  Babylonia  315 

whidh  flanked  the  Babylonian  plain  further  gave  an  impetus  to 
trade.  The  one  opened  the  road  to  the  spice-bearing  coasts  of 
Southern  Arabia  and  the  more  distant  shores  of  Egypt;  the  other 
led  to  the  highlands  of  Western  Asia.  From  the  first  the  Bal>ylon- 
ians  were  merchants  and  sailors,  as  well  as  agriculturists.  The 
'  cry '  of  the  Chaldeans  was  '  in  their  ships.'  The  seaport  of  Eridu 
was  one  of  the  earliest  of  Babylonian  cities,  and  a  special  form  of 
boat  took  its  name  from  the  more  inland  town  of  Ur.  While  the 
population  of  the  country  devoted  itself  to  agriculture  the  towns 
grew  wealthy  by  the  help  of  trade."  ^ 

Thus  the  geography,  combined  with  the  policy  of  Hammu- 
rabi, must  be  held  directly  responsible  for  such  provisions  as 
those  of  sections  53-56,  which  deal  with  the  liability  of  those 
who  neglected  to  strengthen  their  bank  of  a  canal  with  in- 
jurious results  to  other  people's  property,  or  had  caused 
damage  through  careless  manipulation  of  the  water,  and 
again  for  the  special  provisions  protecting  watering  machines 
as  well  as  other  agricultural  instruments  (sects.  259  ff.). 
Special  rules  of  this  latter  type  are  not  at  all  uncommon,-  and 
need  no  explanation.  It  need  scarcely  be  added  that  the 
Code  testifies  clearly  to  the  nature  of  the  products  of  the 
country  in  which  it  originated  —  corn,  sesame,  dates,  etc.  In- 
directly the  geography  must  also  be  held  responsible  for  the 
rules  necessitated  by  the  great  commercial  and  economic  de- 
velopment, and  for  the  history  which  resulted  in  so  great  a 
royal  power.  But  before  passing  to  that  branch  of  the  sub- 
ject something  may  be  said  about  the  land  laws  and  certain 
other  topics  that  may  conveniently  be  disposed  of  at  the  same 
time. 

Where  agricultural  land  is  leased  for  payments  in  kind,  it 

becomes  to  the  landlord's  interest  to  compel  the  cultivator  to 

do  his  duty  in  tilling  the  land  energetically  by  forcing  him  to 

pay  what  the  land  can  be  made  to  bear,  even  if  he  has  not  in 

^  Babylonians  and  Assyrians,   pp.  8  ff. 

=  See  Post,   Grundriss,   vol.   ii.   pp.  421-123. 


316  Pentatcnchal  Studies 

fact  cultivated  it.  The  Code  contains  provisions  to  this  effect 
(sects.  12  ff.),  which  again  find  a  singularly  close  parallel  in 
India  —  this  time  from  Apastamba :  "If  a  person  who  has 
taken  (a  lease  of)  land  (for  cultivation)  does  not  exert  him- 
self, and  hence  (the  land)  bears  no  crop,  he  shall,  if  he  is 
rich,  be  made  to  pay  (to  the  owner  of  the  land  the  value  of 
the  crop)  that  ought  to  have  grown  "  (ii.  11.  38.  1).  On  this 
Biihler  writes :  "  This  Sutra  shows  that  the  system  of  leas- 
ing land  against  a  certain  share  of  the  crops,  which  now  pre- 
vails generally  in  Native  States,  and  is  not  uncommon  in 
private  contracts  on  British  Territory  [i.e.  in  India.  H.  M, 
W.],  was  in  force  in  Apastamba's  times."  ^ 

Like  all  other  ancient  legislators  who  were  concerned  with 
peasant  landholders,  Hammurabi  had  to  face  the  question  of 
giving  some  relief  to  the  poor  peasants  who  had  mortgaged 
their  holdings  and  were  prevented  by  bad  seasons  from  meet- 
ing their  obligations.  The  first  section  which  deals  with  this 
(sect.  48)  is  so  humane  that  it  should  be  quoted  in  extenso: 
"  If  a  man  has  a  debt  upon  him  and  a  thunderstorm  ravaged 
his  field  or  carried  away  the  produce,  or  if  the  corn  has  not 
grown  through  lack  of  water,  in  that  year  he  shall  not  return 
corn  to  the  creditor,  he  shall  alter  his  tablet.  Further,  he 
shall  not  give  interest  for  that  year." 

The  following  sections  (sects.  40-52)  appear  to  be  con- 
ceived in  a  similar  spirit,  and  to  provide  relief  for  those  who 
handed  over  their  fields  to  their  creditors  for  cultivation.  So 
far  as  an  opinion  can  be  formed,  they  seem  to  embody  well- 
devised  and  equitable  rules  for  the  protection  of  the  borrower 
from  oppression  by  the  usurer. 

But  if  Babylonia  was  a  land  of  rivers  and  tilth,  it  was  also 
a  country  of  pastures  and  live  stock.  ITence  the  Code  con- 
'  Sacred  Books  of  the  East,  vol.  ii.  j).  1()G. 


The  Legislations  of  Israel  and  Babylonia  317 

tains  provisions  for  the  remuneration  of  herdsmen,  for  their 
responsibility  for  the  protection  of  their  charges,  and  for  their 
liability  for  injury  inflicted  by  them  on  the  property  of  others. 
Owing  to  the  similarity  of  conditions,  we  once  more  find  ad- 
mirable parallels  to  all  these  in  the  Indian  books. 

Thus  with  section  261^  we  may  compare  Narada  vi.  10: 
"  For  (tending)  a  hundred  cows,  (a  heifer  shall  be  given  to 
the  herdsman)  as  wages  every  year;  for  (tending)  two  hun- 
dred (cows),  a  milch  cow  (shall  be  given  to  him  annually), 
and  he  shall  be  allowed  to  milk  (all  the  cows)  every  eighth 
day." 

Similarly,  when  we  read  the  sections  relating  to  the  lia- 
bility of  shepherds,-  we  are  reminded  of  Indian  provisions. 
Thus  Manu  writes  : — 

"  During  the  day  the  responsibility  for  the  safety  (of  the  cattle 
rests)  on  the  herdsman,  diiring  the  night  on  the  owner,  (provided 
they  are)  in  his  house;  (if  it  he)  otherwise,  the  herdsman  will  be 
responsible  (for  them  also  during  the  night).  .  .  . 

"The  herdsman  alone  shall  make  good  (the  loss  of  a  beast) 
strayed,  destroyed  by  worms,  killed  by  dogs  or  (by  falling)  into  a 
pit,  if  he  did  not  duly  exei't  himself    (to  prevent  it). 

"But  for  (an  animal)  stolen  by  thieves,  though  he  raised  an 
alarm,  the  herdsman  shall  not  pay,  provided  he  gives  notice  to 
his  master  at  the  proper  place  and  time. 

"  If  cattle  die,  let  him  carry  to  his  master  their  ears,  skin,  tails, 
bladders,  tendons,  and  yellow  concrete  bile,  and  let  him  point  out 
their  particular  marks. 

"  But  if  goats  or  sheep  are  surrounded  by  wolves  and  the  herds- 
man does  not  hasten  (to  their  assistance),  he  shall  be  responsible 
for  ,any   (animal)    which  a  wolf  may  attack  and  kill. 

"But  if  they,  kept  in  (proper)  order,  graze  together  in  the  forest, 

^Section  261  runs  as  follows:  "If  a  man  has  hired  a  herdsman 
for  the  cows  or  a  shepherd  for  the  sheep,  he  shall  give  him  eight 
Gur  of  corn  per  year." 

^  Sections  26.S-267,  especially  the  last  two,  providing  tliat  where 
animals  are  lost  through  an  act  of  God,  or  a  lion's  attack,  the  loss 
is  to  fall  on  the  owner,  while  the  shepherd  is  liable  for  losses 
through  negligence. 


318  Pcntatciichal  Studies 

and  a  wolf,  suddenly  jumping  on  one  of  them,  kills  it,  the  herds- 
man shall  bear  in  that  case  no  responsibility"   (viii.  230,  232-236).^ 

And  with  sections  263,  267,  we  may  also  compare  Apas- 
tamba  ii.  11.  28.  6:  "If  (a  herdsman)  who  has  taken  cattle 
under  his  care,  allows  them  to  perish,  or  loses  (them  by 
theft,  through  his  negligence),  he  shall  replace  them  (or  pay 
their  value)  to  the  owners." 

Rules  of  this  kind  spring-  from  the  very  nature  of  the  con- 
tract between  an  owner  and  his  shepherd.  The  whole  object 
of  employing-  a  shepherd  is  to  have  a  guardian  of  the  sheep 
who  shall  be  responsible  for  their  safe  custody.  Accordingly 
he  must  always  be  liable  for  loss  caused  through  his  own 
negligence  or  want  of  skill.  On  the  other  hand,  in  cases 
where  loss  occurs  through  some  cause  that  is  beyond  his  con- 
trol and  that  could  not  have  been  prevented  through  any  ex- 
ercise of  care  or  skill,  e.g.,  vis  major  (Hammurabi's  lion), 
act  of  God,  inevitable  accident,  the  principle  res  domino  perit 
necessarily  finds  application  in  the  absence  of  agreement  to 
the  contrary. 

The  kindred  question  of  the  liability  for  damage  done  by 
sheep  is  dealt  with  by  Hammurabi  in  sections  57  fif.,  making 
the  shepherd  responsible  for  the  depredations  of  his  sheep 
on  green  corn.  An  Indian  parallel  from  Gautama  may  be 
cited : — • 

"  If  damage  is  done  by  cattle,  the  responsibility  falls  on  the 
ownor.  P.ut  if  (the  cattle)  were  attended  by  a  herdsman  (it  falls) 
on  the  latter.  (If  the  damage  was  done)  in  an  unenclosed  field 
near  the  road  (the  responsibility  falls)  on  tlie  lierdsman  and  on 
the  owner  of  the  field.  Five  mashas  (is  the  fine  to  be  paid)  for 
(damage  done  by)  a  cow,  six  for  a  camel  or  a  donkey,  ten  for  a 
horse  or  a  buffalo,  two  for  each  goat  or  sheep.  If  all  is  destroyed 
(the  value  of)  the  whole  crop  (must  be  paid  and  a  fine  in  addi- 
tion)"   (xli.   19-20).= 

^  See,    further.    Narada    vi.    11-17. 

^Cf.,  also,    Manu  viii.  239-241. 


The  Legislations  of  Israel  a)id  Babylonia  319 

It  will  be  seen  that,  with  some  differences  of  detail,  the 
principle  is  substantially  the  same. 

Another  department  of  the  law  may  be  traced  to  the  influ- 
ence of  the  geographical  situation  of  the  people  and  its  con- 
sequent economic  development  acting  on  marriage  customs 
that  in  themselves  are  not  exceptional.  Gifts  by  bridegrooms 
to  the  parent  and  relations  of  the  bride,  and  dowries  given 
by  the  father  on  his  daughter's  marriage  are  common  to 
many  races.  In  Babylonia,  owing  to  the  general  wealth, 
■these  gifts  became  of  great  importance  and  developed  a  num- 
ber of  rules  relating  to  their  disposition  in  various  events. 
For  example,  the  marriage  portion,  being  the  wife's,  will  gen- 
erally follow  her  in  the  event  of  a  dissolution  (sects.  138,  142, 
176,  etc.).  It  descends  to  her  children,  not  to  the  children  of 
another  wife,  and  so  on  (sects.  107,  173,  174,  etc.).'  These 
rules  call  for  no  more  than  passing  mention  here. 

The  geography  of  Babylonia  was  probably  the  chief  influ- 
ence to  which  the  formation  of  a  strong  centralized  monarchy 
may  be  attributed ;  and,  accordingly,  it  will  be  in  place  at 
this  stage  to  notice  the  group  of  sections  dealing  with  certain 
royal  officials  called  by  Mr.  Johns  gangers  and  constables. 
The  property  which  such  officials  enjoyed  by  virtue  of  their 
office  is  rendered  inalienable  (sects.  35-38).  On  the  other 
hand,  they  are  subjected  to  special  provisions  to  secure  their 
efficient  attendance  to  their  duties.  The  details  are  not  at 
present  clear  in  translation  ;  but  the  general  purport  of  the 
rules  appears  sufficiently.  Hammurabi  enacts  that,  for  the 
benefit  of  the  state,  these  men  shall  enjoy  special  rights  and  be 
subject  to  special  duties.  Clearly  he  protects  their  property 
in  order  to  provide  for  efficient  public  service.    Similarly  the 

^An  excellent  note  on  these,  by  Professor  E.  Cuq,  will  be  found 
at  the  end  of  Father  V.  Scheil's  La  Loi  de  Hammourabi. 


320  Pentateitclial  Studies 

law  at  present  in  force  in  this  country  contains  special  pro- 
visions as  to  the  effect  of  a  bankruptcy  on  the  pay  of  an  officer 
of  the  army  or  navy  or  a  civil  servant. 

The  marriage  laws  give  effect  to  two  or  three  principles. 
Generally  the  marriage  tie  is  protected,  hut  where  the  husband 
has  been  taken  in  captivity,  poverty  is  recognized  as  justifying 
the  wife  in  entering  the  house  of  another  (sect.  134).  The 
wife  is  expected  to  be  economical,  attend  to  her  household, 
and  be  dutiful  to  her  husband  (sects.  142  ff.).  The  man  is 
regarded  as  having  a  right  to  obtain  children.  Various  pro- 
visions regulate  divorce,  and  would  apparently  act  in  general 
as  checks  on  the  exercise  of  that  power. 

Of  this*  and  many  departments  of  the  law  it  may  be  said 
generally  that  there  is  evidence  of  that  common  sense  without 
which  no  code  of  this  length  could  possible  have  been  devised 
for  a  people  of  the  material  civilization  of  the  Babylonians, 
and  that  they  further  testify  to  the  well-developed  economic 
instincts  of  the  people.  Ethical  considerations  play  only  a 
very  small  part. 

We  have  seen  something  of  the  legal  machinery  that  was 
inherited  by  the  contemporaries  of  Hammurabi  from  far  more 
primitive  times.  It  is  necessary,  also,  to  notice  the  machinery 
of  a  modern  type  and  the  use  that  was  made  of  it.  The  gen- 
eral diffusion  of  writing  made  the  duly  authenticated  deed 
the  best  proof  of  commercial  transactions.  We  find  provis- 
ions in  the  Code  which  appear  to  be  inspired  by  the  same  mo- 
tive as  the  English  Statute  of  Frauds.^  It  was,  no  doubt, 
"  for  prevention  of  many  fraudulent  practices,"  that  the 
Babylonian  legislator  enacted  (sects.  104  ff.)  that  "a  sealed 
memorandum  of  the  money  he  has  given  to  the  merchant  " 
should  be  required  in  certain  disputes  between  "  merchants  " 
'29  Car.  II.  c.  3. 


The  Legislations  of  Israel  and  Babylonia  321 

and  "  agents,"  and  that  the  depositor  who  effects  his  deposit 
without  "  witness  and  bonds  "  should  have  no  remedy  if  the 
depositary  denied  his  title  (sects.  122  ff.).  The  legal  states- 
manship of  such  provisions  is  beyond  question. 

Other  legal  tools  of  ancient  Babylonia  find  analogies  in 
modern  English  law.  For  example,  a  father  making  a  settle- 
ment of  a  field  or  a  garden  on  a  "  lady,  a  votary  or  a  vowed 
woman,"  could,  if  he  so  desired,  give  her  an  absolute  testa- 
mentary power  over  the  property,  to  the  exclusion  of  her 
brothers  (sect.  179).  On  the  other  hand,  he  might  refuse  to 
do  this.  In  that  case  she  had  only  a  life  interest  without 
power  of  alienation,  and  even  this  interest  was  subject  to  a 
right  on  the  part  of  her  brothers  to  undertake  the  "cultivation 
of  the  property  and  pay  her  corn,  oil,  and  wool,  according  to 
the  value  of  her  share.  Indeed,  speaking  generally,  it  may 
be  said  that  the  rules  of  succession  and  settlements  are  such 
as  usually  spring  up  in  communities  in  an  advanced  economic 
condition. 

In  another  branch  of  the  law  the  machinery  adopted  is  of 
a  \ess  modern  and  permanent  type.  The  Babylonian  legislator 
appears  to  have  sought  to  prevent  disputes  as  to  the  remuner- 
ation for  services  rendered  by  fixing  the  amount  by  statute, 
and  accordingly  we  find  the  fees  for  the  work  of  doctors, 
veterinary  surgeons,  builders,  etc.  These  rules  are  usually 
flanked  by  others,  providing  more  or  less  savage  punishment 
in  the  event  of  the  contractor's  showing  want  of  care  or  skill. 
Thus,  in  the  case  of  certain  unsuccessful  operations,  the  doc- 
tor is  to  lose  his  hands  (sect.  218)  if  his  patient  is  a  "  gentle- 
man." This  doctrine  of  the  legal  responsibility  of  a  physician 
for  failure  may  be  paralleled  from  India.  Thus  we  read  in 
Vishnu :  "Also,  a  physician  who  adopts  a  wrong  method  of 
cure  in  the  case  of  a  patient  of  high  rank  (such  as  a  relative 


322  Pentatcuchal  Studies 

of  the  king's)  [shall  pay  the  highest  amercement]  ;  the  second 
amercement  in  the  case  of  another  patient ;  the  lowest  amerce- 
me'nt  in  the  case  of  an  animal"  (v.  175-177).  Similarly 
Manu  says:  "All  physicians  who  treat  (their  patients) 
wrongly  (shall  pay)  a  fine;  in  the  case  of  animals,  the  first 
(or  lowest)  ;  in  the  case  of  human  beings,  the  middlemost 
(amercement)"  (ix.  284).  An  Indian  commentator  on  this 
latter  passage  adds :  "  But  this  refers  to  cases  when  death 
is  not  (the  result  of  the  wrong  treatment)  ;  for  if  that  is  the 
case  the  punishment  is  greater."  It  is  interesting  to  note 
the  gradation  of  ranks,  leading  in  India,  as  in  Babylonia,  to 
dififerential  treatment  of  the  physician's  failure.  Want  of 
skill  or  success  is  more  heinous  when  the  victim  is  great  than 
when  he  is  little. 

Of  the  intellectual  element  in  the  law  we  have  already  seen 
something,  but  an  example  may  be  taken  of  the  way  in  which 
a  principle  relating  to  property  is  worked  out.  We  may  se- 
lect for  this  purpose  the  aphorism  res  domino  perit  —  if  prop- 
erty is  destroyed,  the  loss  falls  on  the  owner.  In  the  simplest 
cases  the  principle  is  so  obvious  that  no  question  can  possi- 
bly arise.  If  I  accidentally  drop  my  handkerchief  into  the 
fire,  I  am  the  only  person  on  whom  the  loss  can  fall.  The 
same  holds  good  if  my  corn  or  my  sheep  are  destroyed  by  a 
storm  or  a  lion  while  in  my  custody.  But  not  all  the)  cases 
that  may  arise  are  as  clear  as  these.  For  instance^  A's  field 
is  being  cultivated  by  B,  who  in  return  gives  him  a  propor- 
tion of  the  produce.  If  the  calamity  occurs  to  that  which  re- 
mains in  the  field  after  A  has  received  his  proportion,  what 
is  to  be  done?  Here  Hammurabi  rightly  decides  that  the 
ownership  is  definitely  fixed  at  the  time  of  the  receipt.  There- 
fore, the  produce  remaining  in  the  field  had  Ijecome  B's,  and 
B's  only.     Consequently  it  is  on  B  alone  that  the  loss  must 


TJic  Legislations  of  Israel  and  Babylonia  323 

fall  (sect.  45).  If,  on  the  other  hand,  A  had  not  received  his 
share,  the  two  are  joint  owners,  and  the  loss  must  be  divided 
"according^  to  the  tenour  of  their  contract"  (sect.  46),  i.e. 
proportionately,  as  Mr.  Pinches  renders  it.  In  each  case  the 
loss  falls  on  the  owner.  Again,  suppose  that  A's  slave  dies 
of  purely  natural  causes  w^hile  in  the  house  of  B,  who  has 
lawfully  distrained  on  him.  Here  again  res  domino  perit; 
the  owner  must  bear  the  loss  (sect.  115).  Or,  if  B  has  hired 
A's  ox,  and  "  God  has  struck  it,  and  it  has  died,"  or  again,  in 
the  case  already  cited,  if,  by  the  act  of  God  or  vis  major,  A's 
sheep  have  perished  while  under  the  charge  of  C,  a  shepherd, 
the  rule  is  the  same  (sects.  249,  2G6).  On  the  other  hand, 
in  some  cases  of  purchase  there  was  a  right  of  rescission 
within  a  given  time  (sect.  278),  and  here  the  principle  is  sub- 
ject to  this  rule.  The  adoption  and  application  of  principles 
of  this  sort  are  necessary  incidents  of  the  growth  to  maturity 
of  any  legal  system,  but  they  show  the  sound  sense  and  grasp 
that  characterize  certain  portions  of  the  Babylonian  code. 

On  the  other  hand,  nothing  very  satisfactory  can  be  said 
of  the  general  treatment  of  the  intellectual  elements  in  of- 
fenses. The  limits  of  Babylonian  reflection  on  the  matter 
are  only  too  clearly  shown.  The  authors  of  the  Code  are 
usually  willing  to  excuse  anybody  who  acted  under  com- 
pulsion or  under  a  misapprehension  induced  by  another's 
fraud.  For  example,  the  agent  who,  while  on  a  journey,  is 
robbed  by  an  enemy,  is  recognized  as  innocent  (sect.  193),  and 
so  is  the  trader  who  has  been  deceived  into  wronging  the 
owner  of  a  slave  (sect.  227).  They  go  further,  and  recog- 
nize that  the  owner  of  a  vicious  ox  should  be  punished  only 
if  he  had  reason  to  know  that  the  animal  was  vicious,  and 
had  failed  to  take  proper  precautions  to  prevent  its  inflicting 
injury   (sects.  250-252).     They  even  realize  that  in  a  fight  a 


324  Pcntatcuchal  Studies 

blow  may  be  giv^en  that  has  unexpectedly  grave  results  (sects. 
206-208),  and  that  in  such  a  case  the  mental  element  must 
be  taken  into  consideration  in  determining  what  the  legal 
consequences  of  the  action  should  be.  Once  more,  in  esti- 
mating a  wife's  conduct,  they  consider  her  character  as  evi- 
denced by  her  past,  and  also  her  husband's  treatment  of  her 
(sects.  42  ff.).  But  further  than  this  they  do  not  go.  They 
do  not  realize  in  its  entirety  the  maxim  Non  est  reus  nisi  mens 
sit  rea.  Indeed,  they  often  fall  immeasurably  below  it.  The 
builder  who  does  his  work  carelessly  or  unskilfully  or  dis- 
honestly, forfeits  his  life  if  the  house  kills  the  owner  (sect. 
229),  though  he  certainly  had  no  murderous  intent.  Still 
worse,  if  the  collapse  of  the  building  results  in  the  death  of 
the  owner's  son,  the  innocent  son  of  the  builder  is  to  be 
killed.  In  this  case,  at  any  rate,  both  mental  element  and 
overt  act  are  lacking.  No  doubt  much  must  be  attributed  to 
the  primitive  condition  of  legal  reflection  in  Hammurabi's 
Babylonia.  Yet  these  provisions  are  more  barbarously  un- 
just than  any  known  legal  rule  of  any  primitive  people.  And 
so  we  come  to  the  last  branch  of  the  Babylonian  section  of 
our  inquiry  with  the  question,  What  has  the  Code  to  tell  us 
of  the  character  and  ideals  either  of  its  framers  or  of  the 
nation  for  which  it  was  intended?  We  have  seen  that  it  is 
the  work  of  men  whose  intellectual  powers  are  in  some  re- 
spects worthy  of  admiration ;  can  the  same  be  said  of  their 
legislative  ideas? 

The  answer,  however  reluctantly  given,  must  in  the  main 
be  im  favorable. 

In  the  first  place,  the  Code  is  on  the  whole  of  a  savage 
type.  It  is  true  that  the  comparative  material  fully  explains 
the  origin  of  the  barbarous  penalties  that  we  have  encoun- 
tered ;  but  it  also  does  much  to  increase  our  wonder  at  finding 


The  Legislations  of  Israel  and  Babylonia  325 

that  penalties  so  cruel  should  have  been  retained  in  such 
numbers  at  so  advanced  a  stage  of  material  civilization.  The 
extreme  limit  is  reached  when  death  is  inflicted,  by  way  of 
talion,  not  on  the  person  actually  responsible  for  the  offense 
it  is  sought  to  prevent,  but  on  his  innocent  child.  Many  legis- 
lators have  punished  the  innocent  with  the  guilty,  or  the  inno- 
cent in  mistake  for  the  guilty;  it  was  reserved  for  the  Baby- 
lonians or  those  from  whom  they  may  have  derived  these 
rules  to  undertake  knowingly  and  of  set  intent  to  punish  the 
innocent  in  lieu  of  the  guilty.  No  doubt  the  punishment  was 
usually  or  always  commuted.  Not  all  offenders  can  have  had 
children  on  whom  could  be  inflicted  the  punishment  prescribed 
by  "  the  judgments  of  righteousness  which  Hammurabi  the 
mighty  king  confirmed  and  caused  the  land  to  take  a  sure 
guidance  and  a  gracious  rule."  Nevertheless,  the  sections 
remain  on  record  to  show  the  ideas  of  justice  that  were  prev- 
alent in  ancient  Babylonia  and  to  illustrate  the  character  of 
the  people.  And  this  savagery  reappears  in  one  penalty  after 
another.  Nowhere  is  the  operation  of  the  principle  of  talion 
limited  to  any  degree. 

Secondly,  for  good  or  for  evil,  the  protection  of  property 
is  the  paramount  object  of  the  Code,  to  the  exclusion  of  almost 
all  other  ideas.  To  some  extent  this  is  inevitable,  and  not  at 
all  remarkable.  Every  legal  system  designed  for  a  people 
that  has  attained  to  some  degree  of  economic  maturity  must 
necessarily  be  concerned  with  that  which  constitutes  the  main 
subject-matter  of  their  daily  occupations.  But  in  Hammu- 
rabi's Code  the  interest  in  property  leads  to  some  regrettable 
principles.  The  penalties  for  theft  are,  in  some  cases,  alto- 
gether excessive,  as  may  be  seen  by  comparison  with  the 
rules  of  the  Romans  —  a  people  who  were  certainly  not  con- 
spicuous  for  gentleness.     When  the  Romans   adopted  mani- 


326  Pcntatcnchal  Studies 

fold  restitution,  their  maximum  penalty  was  fourfold.  Ham- 
murabi runs  up  to  a  thirtyfold  payment.  On  the  other  hand, 
he  recognizes  the  duty  of  the  government  to  secure  public 
safety.  In  the  prologue  to  the  Code,  he  boasts  of  himself  as 
"  the  wise,  the  active  one,  who  has  captured  the  robbers' 
hiding-places,  sheltered  the  people  of  Malka  in  (their)  mis- 
fortune, caused  their  seats  to  be  founded  in  abundance  " ; 
and  to  his  credit  be  it  said  that  his  ideas  of  the  duty  of  a 
government  in  this  respect  found  legislative  expression  in 
sections  23  ff.,  which  provide  that  where  a  man  is  robbed  by 
a  brigand,  "  the  city  and  governor  in  whose  land  and  dis- 
trict the  brigandage  took  place  shall  render  back  to  him  " 
compensation  if  the  brigand  has  not  been  caught.  A  similar 
view  is  found  in  India.'^ 

Moreover,  in  two  instances,  other  considerations  are  al- 
lowed to  modify  the  claims  of  property:  the  peasant  whose 
power  of  payment  is  destroyed  by  natural  misfortunes  enjoys 
the  benefit  of  protection  against  the  demands  of  the  money- 
lender (sect.  48),  and  again  the  wife  and  child  of  a  debtor 
recover  their  liberty  after  only  three  years'  service  to  the 
creditor  (sect.  117). 

Thirdly,  it  may  fairly  be  said  that  Hammurabi  expects 
every  man  to  do-  his  duty,  and  holds  that  he  ought  to  be 
properly  remunerated  for  his  work.  With  this  object,  we  find 
numerous  provisions  dealing  with  the  remuneration  of  va- 
rious craftsmen  and  inflicting  punishment  for  unsatisfactory 
work.  A  similar  idea  appears  in  the  provisions  that  are  in- 
spired by  the  Babylonian  theory  of  wifely  duty.  vVnd  this 
brings  us  to  a  fourth  characteristic  of  the  Code,  its  treatment 
of  various  trades  and  crafts.  Hammurabi  believed  that  he 
could  best  regulate  by  legislation  matters  that  might  have 
^  See  Gautama  x.  4<!-47 ;   Vishnu  iii.  fiG-G7. 


The  Legislations  of  Israel  and  Babylonia  327 

been  left  to  contract  or  judicial  discretion.  Probably  he  knew 
the  circumstances  of  his  own  age  and  country  best,  and  was 
right  in  taking  this  course.  At  any  rate,  we  have  no  mater- 
ials which  would  justify  us  in  blaming  the  grandmotherliness 
of  his  legislation. 

Fifthly,  the  Babylonian  conception  of  justice,  like  that  of 
the  Indian  law-books,  is  fundamentally  warped  by  the  caste 
system.  Throughout  there  is  one  law  for  the  rich,  another 
for  the  poor.  The  dignity  of  man  was  unknown  in  Baby- 
lonia. 

It  is  probable,  too,  that  the  provision  for  drowning  a  wine 
merchant  who  makes  the  price  of  wine  less  than  that  of  corn 
(sect.  108),  though  it  sounds  a  Httle  strange  to  our  ears,  is 
really  a  temperance  enactment  which  should  be  noted  with 
approval. 

The  highest  ideals  of  the  Code  may  be  summed  up  very 
briefly.  Hammurabi  held  that  it  was  the  duty  of  the  "'  shep- 
herd of  the  people  "  to  make  them  dwell  safely  and  prosper- 
ously. His  ethics,  his  morality,  his  theory  of  legislation,  in 
so  far  as  they  are  not  merely  inherited  from  past  ages,  are 
alike  economic. 

On  the  other  hand,  it  would  appear  that  he  did  give  his 
people  strong  and  certain  rule,  with  its  attendant  benefits; 
and  it  must  be  remembered  that  even  inferior  laws,  if  en- 
forced rigorously  and  impartially,  are  greatly  preferable  in 
their  practical  consequences  to  a  legislation  that  is  not  ap- 
plied strongly  and  uniformly,  even  if  the  latter  be  superior 
on  paper. 

It  is  a  misfortune  for  the  posthumous  reputation  of  the 
Babylonian  king,  that  in  our  days,  circumstances  necessitate 
the  comparison  of  his  famous  statute  with  the  noblest  monu- 
ment of  legislative  idealism  that  history  has  produced.     The 


328  Pentateuchal  Studies 

interest  that  is  felt  in  Hammurabi's  Code  by  the  general  pub- 
lic is  largely  due  to  the  supposed  possibility  that  it  may  have 
exercised  some  considerable  influence  on  the  law  of  Israel. 
The  Babylonian  system  could  far  better  stand  a  comparison 
with  the  law-books  of  India,  the  law  of  Imperial  Rome,  or 
the  law  of  England  in,  say,  the  eighteenth  century,  than  with 
the  work  of  him  whose  labors  were  directed  to  teaching  that 
"  man  doth  not  live  by  bread  only,  but  by  all  that  cometh  out 
of  the  mouth  of  the  Lord  doth  man  live"  (Deut.  viii.  3). 

In  dealing  with  the  second  division  of  my  subject,  it  is  not 
my  intention  to  answer  those  who  maintain  that  Hebrew  law 
was  borrowed  from  or  greatly  influenced  by  the  Babylonian 
system.  Such  a  theory  is  so  absolutely  preposterous  on  the 
face  of  the  legislations,  that  no  comparative  jurist  could  be 
found  to  defend  it,  and  I  should  not  be  justified  in  wasting 
the  time  of  this  Society  in  discussions  of  this  nature.^  A  word 
may,  however,  be  given  to  the  patriarchal  customs  evidenced 
by  the  book  of  Genesis.  It  is  sometimes  said  that  the  patri- 
archs lived  under  the  Code  of  Hammurabi.  This  result  is 
attained  by  the  familiar  method  of  emphasizing  such  portions 
of  the  evidence  as  appear  to  support  the  theory  while  leaving 
out  of  account  all  the  other  relevant  facts.  For  example,  the 
Hebrew  patriarch,  like  the  Roman  pater  faiuilias,  exercised 
absolute  powers  of  life  and  death  over  the  members  of  his 
household,  including  his  children  and  his  daughters-in-law. 
The  Code  of  Hammurabi,  on  the  other  hand,  shows  us  a 
society  in  which  the  paternal  power  had  long  since  been  re- 
duced to  more  moderate  dimensions.  There  can,  therefore, 
be  no  question  of  the  Code's  being  the  law  of  the  patriarchs. 
On  the  other  hand,  there  are  resemblances  between  the  early 

^  For  a  full  consitleration  of  the  topic,  see  my  article  "  Law  in 
the  Old   Testament "    in    Murray's    Illustrated   Bible   Dictionary. 


The  Legislations  of  Israel  and  Babylonia  329 

Hebrew  customs  and  the  Babylonian  law ;  and  it  is  not  im- 
possible that  these  are  due  either  to  community  of  origin  or 
to  direct  influence. 

The  comparison  I  have  to  suggest  will,  I  trust,  be  more 
fruitful  of  historical  profit  than  any  speculations  of  influence 
which  are  foredoomed  to  sterility.  I  purpose  to  take  up  the 
factors  and  influences  in  the  formation  of  the  legislation  that 
we  have  seen  at  work  in  Babylonia,  and  show  how  they  oper- 
ated in  ancient  Israel.  But  this  process  can  only  be  repeated 
with  a  necessary  difference.  While  in  the  older  system  we 
had  only  to  note  the  uncontrolled  operation  of  such  ideas  as 
the  conception  of  talion,  in  the  younger  we  should  continually 
have  to  stop  to  examine  the  checks  and  restraints  that  were 
imposed  on  them  by  the  theory  of  legislation  that  inspires  the 
work  throughout. 

It  is  for  this  reason  that,  before  embarking  on  the  consider- 
ation of  the  various  formative  influences  that  we  have  seen 
at  work  in  the  Code  of  Hammurabi,  we  must  consider  the 
distinctive  currents  of  thought  that  dominate  the  whole. 
The  historical  student  of,  say,  English  legislation  in  the 
nineteenth  century,  is  compelled  to  take  into  account  the 
great  intellectual  forces  that  molded  its  history  —  such  as 
utilitarianism,  laisses  faire,  collectivism.  The  nearest  analogy 
in  the  case  of  Hammurabi  (if  there  be  one)  appears  to  be 
the  theory  that  extensive  state  regulation  is  for  the  benefit  of 
the  community,  and  the  main  interest  lies  in  the  political,  so- 
cial, and  economic  conditions  —  in  the  external  elements  of 
human  life.  In  the  case  of  the  Pentateuchal  legislation  the 
exact  opposite  is  true.  Here  the  internal  and  spiritual  com- 
pel our  fascinated  gaze,  and  the  external  is  of  interest  mainly 
in  so  far  as  it  manifests  the  influence  of  the  former.  The 
greatness  of  Israel  lies  in  his  soul. 


330  Pcntatcuclial  Studies 

The  jural  laws  contained  in  the  Mosaic  legislation  form  a 
portion  of  a  larger  corpus  which  was  given  to  the  Hebrew 
tribes  by  the  God  with  whom,  at  the  period,  they  entered  into 
a  special  relation.  By  an  act  that  is  unparalleled  in  history 
a  God  took  to  himself  a  people  by  means  of  a  sworn  agree- 
ment. Some  words  that  are  fundamental  for  our  purpose 
must  be  quoted  from  the  offer:  "Now,  therefore,  if  ye  will 
obey  my  voice  indeed,  and  keep  my  covenant,  then  ye  shall 
be  a  peculiar  treasure  to  me  from  among  all  peoples:  for  all 
the  earth  is  mine ;  and  ye  shall  be  unto  me  a  kingdom  of 
priests  and  a  holy  nation"  (Ex.  xix.  5  ft'.).  The  views  here 
expressed  dominate  the  legislation.'  Holiness  —  the  correla- 
tive holiness  to  which  the  Israelites  must  attain  because  the 
Lord  their  God  is  holy  (Lev.  xix.  2)  — embraces  much  that  is 
not  germane  to  our  subject  this  afternoon,  but  it  also  covers 
the  whole  field  of  national  and  individual  righteousness.  The 
duty  to  God  that  is  laid  upon  the  Israelites  in  these  words  is 
a  duty  that  has  practical  consequences  in  every  phase  of  so- 
cial life.  I  have  already  quoted  a  sentence  from  Sir  Henry 
Maine  in  which  he  speaks  of  the  uniformity  with  which  re- 
ligion and  law  are  implicated  in  archaic  legislations.  There 
is  a  stage  in  human  development  where  life  is  generally  seen 
whole,  and  it  is  to  this  stage  that  the  Pentateuch  belongs. 
But  no  other  legislation  so  takes  up  one  department  of  man's 
life  after  another  and  impresses  on  them  all  the  relationship 
O'f  God  and  people.  Perhaps  nothing  will  so  clearly  bring 
out  my  meaning  as  a  statement  of  some  of  the  more  funda- 
mental differences  between  the  Pentateuchal  legislation  and 
the  old  Indian  law-books  which  often  provide  excellent  par- 
allels to  it.  Those  to  which  I  desire  to  draw  particular  atten- 
tion are  as  follows:  The  Indian  law-books  have  no  idea  of 
national   (as  distinct  from  individual)   righteousness  —  a  con- 


The  Legislations  of  Israel  and  Babylonia  331 

ception  that  entered  the  world  with  the  Mosaic  legislation 
and  has  perhaps  not  made  very  much  progress  there  since. 
There  is  no  personal  God :  hence  his  personal  interest  in 
righteousness  is  lacking:  hence,  too.  there  can  be  no  rela- 
tionship between  God  and  people :  and  while  there  is  a  super- 
natural element  in  the  contemplated  results  of  human  actions 
there  is  nothing  that  can  in  the  slightest  degree  compare  with 
the  Personal  Divine  intervention  that  is  so  often  promised 
in  the  Pentateuchal  lavvs.^  The  caste  system,  like  Hammu- 
rabi's class  system,  leads  to  distinctions  that  are  always  in- 
equitable. The  conception  of  loving  one's  neighbor  and  one's 
sojourner  as  one's  self  are  alike  lacking:  The  systematic  pro- 
visions for  poor  relief  are  absent,  and  the  legislation  is  gen- 
erally on  a  lower  ethical  and  moral  level ;  while  some  of  the 
penalties  are  distinguished  by  the  most  perverted  and  bar- 
barous cruelty.  All  these  points  are  embraced  in  the  special 
relationship  of  the  One  God  and  the  peculiar  treasure,  with 
its  resulting  need  for  national  and  individual  holiness. 

The  primitive  ideas  of  proof  by  oath  or  ordeal  meet  us 
again  in  Israel,  as  in  Babylonia.  After  what  has  already 
been  said,  they  need  not  detain  us.  Sympathetic  talion  only 
occurs  once  in  the  jural  laws,  though  it  holds  a  rather  more 
prominent  place  in  the  precepts  which  have  purely  supernat- 
ural sanctions  and  are  for  that  reason  excluded  from  com- 
parison with  Hammurabi.  Talion  occupies  a  somewhat  more 
important  position.  I  have  elsewhere  given  my  reasons  for 
thinking  that  it  was  always  subject  to  composition  except  in 
the  case  of  offenses  involving  capital  punishment.-     Be  that 

^E.g.,  "And  if  ye  shall  say,  What  shall  we  eat  the  seventh  year? 
behold,  we  shall  not  sow,  nor  gather  In  our  increase;  then  I  will 
command  my  blessing  upon  you  in  the  sixth  year,  and  it  shall 
bring  forth  fruit  for  the  three  years"    (Lev.  xxv.  20  ff.). 

=  Studies   in  Biblical   Law.  chap.   vi. 


333  Pentatenchal  Studies 

as  it  may,  it  is  instructive  to  note  that  the  principle  is  care- 
fully controlled.  In  lieu  of  the  penalties  striking  at  innocent 
children,  we  read :  "  The  fathers  shall  not  be  put  to  death  for 
the  children,  neither  shall  the  children  be  put  to  death  for  the 
fathers :  every  man  shall  be  put  to  death  for  his  own  sin  " 
(Deut.  xxiv.  16) — a  provision  that  was  perhaps  called  forth 
by  some  legislation  or  custom  that  resembled  Hammurabi's 
Code.  Again,  the  principle  of  talion  is  here  free  from  all 
class  differentiations,  which  are  repugnant  to  the  spirit  of 
the  Mosaic  law,  whose  only  favorites  are  the  weak  and  help- 
less. The  principle  of  making  manifold  restitution  for  theft 
and  in  certain  kindred  offenses  is  found  here,  as  in  so  many 
other  ancient  legislations:  but  the  provisions  are  far  more 
equitable  and  humane  than  those  of  Hammurabi. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  laws  relating  to  filial  duty  show 
how  much  nearer  the  age  of  Moses  was  to  the  days  of  unre- 
stricted paternal  power  than  the  age  of  Hammurabi,  death 
being  the  penalty  for  striking  a  parent.  It  should,  however, 
also  be  pointed  out  that  the  religious  element  enters  into  the 
conception,  filial  duty  being  regarded  as  a  constituent  in 
holiness. 

In  dealing  with  the  Hebrew  system  we  have  to  assign  far 
more  weight  to  history,  and  far  less  to  geography,  than  in 
the  Babylonian.  The  Hebrew  tribes  and  their  customs  had 
a  more  varied  past  to  look  back  upon  than  their  Babylonian 
kinsmen.  They  had  been  nomads  who  for  some  time  had 
sojourned  in  Canaan,  and  had  even  had  some  agricultural 
experience  there.  Thence  they  had  migrated  to  Egypt,  where 
they  had  again  tilled  the  soil ;  and  during  the  legislative 
period  they  were  homeless  wanderers  in  a  desert,  making 
ready  to  fall  upon  the  land  they  yearned  to  possess.  Without 
doubt  the  geographical  influences  must  have  been  effective  as 


The  Legislations  of  Israel  and  Babylonia  333 

well  as  varied;  but,  owing  partly  to  the  history  and  partly 
to  the  spiritual  nature  of  the  people,  they  do  not  exercise  the 
predominating  power  that  they  are  seen  to  possess  in  Baby- 
lonia. It  will  be  well  to  treat  the  historical  and  geographical 
factors  together. 

The  land  for  which  the  legislation  was  intended  was  not  a 
land  of  great  rivers  and  fertile  plains  irrigated  by  canals,  a 
land  of  sesame  and  dates,  but  "  a  land  of  hills  and  valleys 
that  drank  water  of  the  rain  of  heaven"  (Deut.  xi.  11)  ;  ''a 
land  of  brooks  of  water,  of  fountains,  and  depths  springing 
forth  in  valleys  and  hills,  a  land  of  wheat  and  barley  and 
vines  and  fig  trees  and  pomegranates,  a  land  of  oil  olives, 
and  honey ;  .  .  .  a  land  whose  stones  are  iron  and  out  of  whose 
hills  thou  mayest  dig  copper"   (Deut.  viii.  7-9). 

It  is  at  once  obvious  that,  in  view  of  these  natural  features, 
we  cannot  look  for  any  provisions  relating  to  navigation  or 
canals.  It  is  equally  obvious  that  the  economic  condition  of 
the  people  was  necessarily  far  more  primitive  than  that  of 
Babylonia.  Hence  we  shall  not  find  the  well-developed  sys- 
tem of  trades  and  industry.  There  are  a  few  rules  dealing 
with  the  simplest  cases  of  danger  by  or  to  cattle,  but  this  is 
one  of  the  departments  of  law  that  show  the  greatest  simi- 
larity all  the  world  over,  and  call  for  little  comment.  The 
real  interest  lies  elsewhere  —  in  the  land  laws,  the  slave  laws, 
the  tribal  theory,  and  so  on.  These  subjects  we  must  now 
consider. 

The  land  laws  are  the  product  of  many  independent  ideas 
and  circumstances.  Their  consideration  is  in  place  here,  be- 
cause the  conditions  of  the  problem  and  the  opportunity  for 
grappling  with  it  show  the  influence  of  history  with  such 
singular  clearness.  First,  such  a  system  as  that  expounded 
in  the  twenty-fifth  chapter  of  Leviticus  could  be  put  forward 


334  Pentatcnchal  Studies 

only  by  one  who  had  to  work  on  what  is  so  very  rare  in  his- 
tory —  a  clean  slate.     In  other  words,  the  system  of  land  ten- 
ure here  laid  down  could  be  introduced  in  this  way  only  by 
men  who  had   no  preexisting  system  to  reckon  with.      Sec- 
ondly,   there    is   (inittatis    mutandis)   a    marked    resemblance 
between   the   provisions    of   Leviticus   and   the    system   intro- 
duced in  Egypt  by  Joseph  (Gen.  xlvii.).   The  land  is  the  Lord's 
as  it  is  Pharaoh's ;  but  the  towns  which  are  built  on  that  land 
are  not  subject  to  the  same  theory  or  the  same  rules.     Per- 
haps the  explanation  is  that  Joseph's  measures  had  affected 
only  those  who   gained   their   living  by   agriculture,   i.e.    the 
dwellers  in  the  country.    Thirdly,  the  system  shows  the  enor- 
mous  power   that    the    conception    of    family    solidarity    pos- 
sessed in  the  Mosaic  Age  —  a  conception  to  which  we  shall 
have  to  return  directly.     And,  fourthly,  the  enactment  is  in- 
spired and  illuminated  by  the  humanitarian  and  religious  con- 
victions and  ideals  to  which  reference  has  already  been  made. 
In   the   economic   sphere  the   contrast  between   Moses   and 
Hammurabi  is  very  marked.    Taking  human  property  first,  we 
find  that  the  Babylonian  code  is  careful  to  guard  the  rights 
of   slave  owners,   inflicting   the  death   penalty   on  those  who 
effectively  aid  runaway  slaves  (sects.  15-20).     Contrast  with 
this  the  Hebrew  provisions :  "  Thou  shalt  not  deliver  unto  his 
master  a  servant  which  is  escaped  from  his  master  unto  thee : 
with   thee  he   shall   dwell    in  the  midst   of  thee,   in   the   place 
which  he  shall  choose  within  one  of  thy  gates,  where  it  liketh 
him  best:  thou  shalt  not  oppress  him"   (Deut.  xxiii.   15  ff.). 
It  has  been   said   with   some  truth  that   such   provisions   can 
more  easily  be  enacted  for  a  primitive  community  than  at  a 
more  developed  economic  stage,  but  this  is  only  a  portion  of 
the  truth,  and.  if  taken  by  itself,  a  very  misleading  portion. 
Economic  circumstances  mav  have  been  one  of  the  conditions 


The  Lc<^lslalions  of  Israel  and  Babylonia  335 

of  the  enactment  of  the  rule  (at  any  rate  in  its  present  form)  : 
they  could  not  provide  its  Motive.  The  difference  between 
the  two  lei^islations  here  indicated  is  further  emi)hasized  by 
other  provisions  which  secure  the  slave  from  mal-treatment 
by  his  master.  Here  it  cannot  be  said  that  economic  develop- 
ment necessitates  or  justifies  the  1  Babylonian  code.  In  a  word, 
where  Hammurabi  safeguards  the  rights  of  property,  Moses 
for  the  first  time  in  history  protects  the  rights  of  humanity. 

The  same  holds  good  of  the  laws  relating  to  loans,  pledges. 
and  poor  relief.  The  legislator's  object  is  always  the  same  — 
to  give  practical  effect  to  the  doctrine  of  holiness  which  con- 
ceives the  love  of  God's  creatures  as  part  of  the  Israelite's 
duty  towards  his  God. 

We  now  come  to  two  points  that  are  best  treated  together 
—  the  strength  of  the  family  and  tribal  sentiment,  and  the 
weakness  of  the  central  administration.  These  appear  to  be 
due  mainly  to  historical  causes.  In  lieu  of  a  people  subjected 
to  a  strong  centralized  royal  power  with  class  distinctions,  as 
were  the  Babylonians,  history  had  made  of  the  Hebrews  a 
loose  aggregation  of  undisciplined  tribes  unaccustomed  to 
community  of  government,  community  of  interest,  or  com- 
munity of  action,  knowing  little  of  class  distinctions,  but 
profoundly  imbued  with  family  sentiment.  The  enormous 
strength  of  this  feeling  is  to  be  seen  in  the  influence  it  exer- 
cised on  the  law  of  succession  to  land.  Here  the  possible 
eff'ect  of  the  Mosaic  provisions  led  to  a  deputation  of  remon- 
strance, which  pointed  out  that  the  possessions  of  heiresses 
might  by  their  marriage  become  permanently  vested  in  mem- 
bers of  another  tribe.  It  was  accordingly  enacted  that  in 
such  cases  they  must  espouse  men  of  their  own  tribes,  but 
the  incident  and  the  resulting  law  testify  very  vividly  to  the 
nature  of  the  feeling.     It  is  probably  to  this  feeling  of  tribal 


336  Peniatcuchal  Studies 

separateness  that  we  should  attribute,  in  part  at  any  rate, 
the  great  de'fect  of  the  system  —  the  failure  to  create  a  cen- 
tral government,  which  in  those  days  could  have  been  effected 
only  by  giving-  hereditary  authority  to  one  family.  Probably 
no  tribe  would  have  submitted  to  a  king  who  was  chosen 
from  some  other  tribe.  Neither  Moses  nor  Joshua  appears 
to  have  had  a  son  who  was  capable  of  ruling,  and  for  the 
purposes  of  conquest  a  general  was  the  only  possible  head  ol 
the  people.  Hence  the  defect  was  probably  inevitable,  but  the 
weakness  of  the  Hebrew  system  at  this  point  is  the  measure 
of  the  strength  of  the  Babylonian.  The  strong  security  .for 
life  and  property,  the  compensation  for  robbery  that  Ham- 
murabi could  afford,  were  out  of  the  question  for  tribes  with 
the  historical  antecedents  of  the  Israelites.  It  should  further 
be  pointed  out  that  the  geographical  character  of  the  country, 
with  its  hills  and  valleys,  and  the  survival  of  a  large  alien 
population  filling  in  the  interstices  between  the  Hebrew  set- 
tlements, must  have  made  a  centralized  national  power  im- 
possible for  long  after  the  days  of  Moses. 

With  regard  to  legal  machinery  everything  is  very  primi- 
tive. With  the  single  doubtful  exception  of  the  bill  of  divorce, 
the  use  of  writing  by  private  persons  in  the  ordinary  course 
of  every-day  life  is  never  contemplated.  Hence  we  find,  as 
in  so  many  primitive  communities,  that  legal  business  was 
habitually  transacted  in  the  most  public  place  possible,  i.e'.  at 
the  gate  of  the  city,  where  the  facts  would  necessarily  become 
known  to  those  who  would  be  judges  or  witnesses  or  both  in 
case  of  any  further  dispute. 

Turning  now  to  the  intellectual  element  in  the  law,  we  find 
that  the  state  of  legal  reflection  is  also  very  primitive.  A 
distinction  between  intentional  murder  and  other  forms  of 
homicide  is  introduced  for  the  first  time,  and  in  terms  that 


The  Legislations  of  Israel  and  Babylonia  337 

show  clearly  how  difficult  the  conception  was  to  contempo- 
raries of  Moses.  The  same  holds  g^ood  of  the  law  of  rape.  In 
the  case  of  the  savage  ox  the  Hebrew  legislator  reaches  the 
same  stage  of  reflection  as  the  Babylonian,  but  the  undevel- 
oped state  of  thought  is  further  attested  by  sacrificial  provis- 
ions relating  to  sins  committed  in  ignorance  and  wilfully, 
which,  however,  strictly  fall  outside  the  scope  of  this  paper. 
An  act  committed  in  ignorance  may  be  a  sin  calling  for  atone- 
ment. On  the  other  hand,  no  atonement  can  be  made  for 
wilful  sins,  and  all  sins  are  regarded  as  either  ignorant  or 
wilful.  Such  conceptions  are  the  best  witness  to  the  extremely 
archaic  nature  of  the  legislation. 

To  sum  up  the  results  of  our  survey :  In  dealing  with  any 
legal  system  it  is  necessary  to  separate  the  accidental  from  the 
essential,  the  universal  from  the  characteristic.  Every  pro- 
gressive race  necessarily  passes  through  certain  stages  of 
growth.  Every  race  will  be  affected  by  its  environment,  the 
surroundings  of  its  life,  the  task  that  it  must  accomplish  if 
it  wishes  to  exist.  Every  progressive  race  will  have  to  deal 
with  certain  problems  that  arise  in  all  countries,  the  problems 
presented  by  those  who  kill  or  injure  their  neighbors,  the 
ownership  of  property  of  various  kinds,  the  commonest  forms 
of  social  intercourse,  and  so  on.  In  some  of  these  cases 
all  men  of  ordinary  ability  will  reach  substantially  the  same 
solutions ;  but  in  others,  the  interplay  of  the  various  factors 
causes  considerable  variety.  The  study  of  the  results  is  a 
task  of  some  interest,  but  it  must  yield  in  fascination  to  the 
consideration  of  national  and  legislative  ideals  and  national 
character.  These  two  are  inseparably  linked,  for  there  must 
be  a  more  or  less  close  correspondence  between  the  character 
of  the  legislation  and  the  sentiments  of  the  governed.  Legis- 
lative ideals  of  our  own  and  past  ages  readily  present  them- 


338  Pcntateuchal  Studies 

selves  to  the  mind  in  abounding  number  —  to  ev  ^tjv  — with 
all  that  it  meant  to  the  Athenian ;  the  imperialism  of  Rome ; 
liberty,  equality,  fraternity ;  utilitarianism ;  laissez  faire,  lais- 
sc.z  passer;  nationalism ;  and  so  on.  If  we  interrogate  the 
Babylonian  code  for  its  ideas,  we  learn  that  its  watchword  is 
"  Security  and  Prosperity  " ;  if  the  Israelitish,  we  receive  the 
answer  "  Holiness." 

The  fate  of  the  legislations  has  corresponded  to  their  re- 
spective characters.  A  generation  or  two  after  the  death  of 
Hammurabi,  no  man  could  have  doubted  that  his  work  had 
been  successful ;  probably  few  would  have  said  as  much  of 
the  work  of  Moses  at  a  corresponding  interval  after  he  was 
gathered  to  his  fathers.  "  In  those  days  there  was  no  king 
in  Israel ;  every  man  did  that  which  was  right  in  his  own 
sight."  But  to-day  the  verdict  is  different.  The  Code  of  the 
Babylonian  had  its  period  of  utility,  and  was  then  flung  aside 
like  an  old  shoe.  For  thousands  of  years  its  very  name  was 
forgotten,  and  to-day,  when  the  bulk  of  it  has  been  exhumed 
from  the  dust  of  centuries,  we  find  that  it  is  without  value  for 
our  life  or  its  problems.  The  people  to  whom  it  was  given 
have  passed  away  after  doing  their  part  for  the  material  and 
intellectual  advancement  of  the  world,  but  without  contrib- 
uting one  iota  to  its  higher  life.  The  work  of  the  Israelite, 
on  the  other  hand,  has  given  to  his  own  people  the  quality 
of  immortality  and  has  borne  mighty  fruit  among  other  peo- 
ples in  both  hemispheres ;  so  far  as  human  vision  can  see, 
it  will  continue  to  do  so  in  ever-growing  measure ;  and 
throughout  a  century  of  generations,  the  work  of  him  who 
was  powerless  to  create  machinery  that  could  maintain  public 
security  in  the  national  territory  for  a  single  generation  has 
remained,  for  millions  of  people  all  over  the  world,  par  excel- 
lence the  Law. 


INDEX  I 
PRINCIPAL  PASSAGES  REFERRED  lO 


GENESIS 

GENESIS 

i.  1-Ex.  iii. 

12 

53 

xviii.  13 

75 

i.  1-ii.  •.^ 

207 

xix.3 

86 

ii. 

58 

xix.  29 

78,81 

ii.  4a,  4b  ff. 

207 

XX. 

68,  74  ff. 

ii.  14 

64,83 

XX.  4 

74 

iii. 

58 

XX.  5 

75 

iii.  18 

88 

XX.  7 

28,  75  f . 

iv.  3  ff. 

86 

XX.  14,  IS 

74 

iv.20 

255 

xxi.  1 

30 

iv.  25  f. 

59,  208 

xxi.  lb 

59,  78 

iv.26 

55  f. 

xxi.  2b,  3 

78,82 

V.28 

208  f. 

xxi.  4 

78 

vii.  8, 9 

59 

xxi.  8  ff. 

67  f. 

viii.  lb 

59 

xxi.  8 

86 

viii.  20  ff. 

86 

xxi.  9 

81 

viii.  20 

51 

xxi.  14, 15, 18 

82 

ix. 20-27 

59 

xxii.           19  ff.,  26,  67, 

86,  20Gn. 

X. 

26 

xxii.  1 

59 

X.  19 

5f.,2 

:7.  63,  83, 116,  123 

xxii.  2 

19 

xii.  4b 

78,80 

xxii.  10 

206  » 

xii.  5 

73.  78,  80 

xxii.  11 

55,59 

xii.  6 

80 

xxii.  14 

19,59 

xii.  6b 

26 

xxii.  15 

55 

xii.  8 

26 

xxii.  16-18 

203 

xii.  10  ff. 

68 

xxiii. 

78.  219 

xiii.  6 

78,80 

xxiii.  1,  2 

78 

xiii.  7b 

26 

xxiv. 

87 

xiii.  9  a^ 

80 

XXV.  7,  8,  9, 10 

78 

xiii.  lib 

78,80 

XXV.  11 

79 

xiii.  12a,  b 

78 

XXV.  26 

22  f. 

xiii.  12b^ 

80 

XXV  i.  24 

203 

xiii.  14 

26 

xxvi.  30 

86 

xiv. 

83 

xxvi.  34 

22  f. 

xiv.  14, 18 

28 

xxvii. 

22  f. 

XV.  1 

75 

xxvii.  2,  4 

24 

XV.  2^ 

219  n. 

xxvii.  .35  ff. 

67 

xvi. 

.'« 

xxvii.  41 

23  f. 

xvi.  1 

78 

xxvii.  46 

22 

xvi.  la 

81 

xxviii.  13  f. 

203 

xvi.  3 

78,81 

xxviii.  21b 

59 

xvi.  11 

53,  55  f.,  106 

xxviii.  22 

298 

xvi.  15, 16 

78.81 

xxix.  22 

86 

xvii. 

78,82 

XXX.  18 

74 

xvii.  1 

59 

XXX.  18  a3 

75 

xvii.  7,  8 

203 

xxxi.  7 

75 

xvii.  25 

82 

xxxi.  32 

219 

339 


540  Pentatcuchal  Studies 


GENESIS 

GENESIS 

xxxi.  50 

55,  59 

xlii.l 

72,74 

xxxi.  54 

86 

xlii.  2 

43  H. 

xxxiii.  1-17 

59 

xlii.  3 

43 »).,  85 

xxxiii.  5b.  10, 11 

59 

xlii.  4 

34  f.,  72 

xxxiv. 

70 

xlii.  5 

35.  43  n. 

xxxiv.  7 

28 

xlii.  6 

39.  43  n. 

XXXV.  5 

72 

xlii.  8 

34 

XXXV.  14 

86 

xlii.  13, 14, : 

18  ' 

43»;. 

XXXV.  21 

28,72 

xlii.  22 

43  n..  45 

XXXV.  22 

45  n.,  71 

xlii.  25,  27 

41  f. 

XXXV.  22a 

72 

xlii.  28 

44«.,60 

XXXV.  28 

22  f. 

xlii.  28a 

41  f. 

xxxvi.  31-39 

26 

xlii.  29 

72 

xxxvii. 

30, 

45  ff.,  89 

xlii.  .30 

41 

xxxvii.  2,  3, 13, 14a 

35 

xlii.  32 

43  «. 

xxxvii.  21  f. 

45 

xlii.  33 

41,  43  n. 

xxxvii.  25-27 

46 

xlii.  34 

43  n. 

xxxvii.  28a 

■     46  ff. 

xlii.  35 

41  f..  43  n. 

xxxvii.  28b 

46 

xlii.  36 

36.72 

xxxvii.  31 

206  n. 

xliii. 

45  «. 

xxxvii.  34 

35 

xliii.2 

36 

xxxvii.  36 

46  ff. 

xliii.  3 

43%. 

xxxviii.  24 

85 

xliii.  6 

72 

xxxix 

30  f 

■..  60,  70 

xliii.  S 

36,  43  ».,  72 

xxxix.  1 

30  f..  46 

xliii.  9 

43  V. 

xxxix.  3,  5 

31  n. 

xliii.  11 

36.  72 

xxxix.  6-19 

70 

xliii.  12 

41  f. 

xxxix.  7-20 

70 

xliii.  13. 

14, 

15 

43  7?. 

xxxix.  10.  11,12.13 

31  J?. 

xliii.  16 

43  n. 

xxxix.  20  f. 

30  f. 

xliii.  17 

43  n. 

xxxix.  20 

31.  31  n. 

xliii.  IS. 

21 

41  f. 

xxxix.  22 

31n. 

xliii.  22. 

24. 

26 

43  n. 

xl. 

.30  f. 

xliii.  28 

44  n. 

xl.  1-7 

32  f. 

xliii.  30 

43  n. 

xl.  1 

31 

xliii.  34 

44  }i. 

xl.2 

32 

xliv. 

•219 

xl.3 

31,  31 «. 

xliv.  8 

41  f. 

xl.4 

32 

xliv.  11, 

14 

44  n. 

xl.5 

31, 

,  31  n.,  ,32 

xliv.  18  ff. 

67 

xl.7 

31  ff. 

xliv.  23. 

26, 

27 

44/?. 

xl.  15 

27  f.,  31,  46 

xlv. 

70 

xli.4.  5,  8 

33  n. 

xlv.  3 

44  n. 

xli.  10 

32 

xlv.  4 

46 

xli.  11 

33  n. 

xlv.  5.  7, 

12 

.  16,  19.22. 

23           44 II. 

xli.  12 

34  «. 

xlv.  25 

72 

.xli.  13 

33  n. 

xlv.  27 

3(1,  44  //. 

xli.  14 

31 

xlv.  28 

36.  44  ?).,  72 

xli.  17.  10.2.3.27,34. 

44 

34  «. 

xlvi.  1 

36.  86 

xli.  45 

33 

xlvi.  la 

72 

xli.  46 

.33,  34  n. 

xlvi.  2 

34.  36.  71  ff. 

xli.  51 

34  n. 

xlvi.  5 

34.  36 

xli.  56 

34 

•  ;?..  mn. 

xlvi.  5a 

72  f. 

xlii. 

41  f.,   45  n. 

xlvi.  5b 

71  ff. 

Index  I 


311 


GENESIS 

EXODUS 

xlvi.  (i 

36 

xvii.  7 

69  » 

xlvi.  (i  1'. 

43  f. 

xvii.  14 

149 

xlvi.  S-27 

44 

xviii.  () 

148 

xlvi.  8 

36  f. 

xix.-xxiii. 

180 

xlvi.  12 

89 

xix.  5  ff. 

330 

xlvi.  27 

73,  202 

xix.  22,  24 

230,  251 

xlvi.  29,  30 

37.72 

XX.  14 

190 

xlvii. 

334 

XX.  24-2(! 

183  n.. 

,  188,  226,  300 

xlvii.  5-11 

44 

xxi.  ff. 

180  ff. 

xlvii.  7,  8,  9 

36 

xxi.,  xxii. 

8 

xlvii.  21 

39  n. 

xxi. 

151 

xlvii.  27 

36 

xxi.  5 

186  n. 

xlvii.  27b 

44 

xxi.  0 

148 

,  150f..  186H. 

xlvii.  28 

36,44 

xxi.  13 

180,  299  «.,  300 

xlvii.  29,  31 

36 

xxi.  14 

299  n..  300 

xlviii.  2,  3 

37 

xxi.  15 

86 

xlviii.  2a,  b 

73 

xxi.  17 

86,  190 

xlviii.  7 

67 

xxi.  20 

149 

xlviii.  8 

34,  37.  71  £E. 

xxi.  37  (.xxii. 

1) 

145 

xlviii.  9 

37 

xxii.  17  (18), 

18  (19) 

190 

xlviii.  10 

38 

xxii.  28  (29) 

296 

xlviii.  11 

34,  38.  71  ff. 

xxiii. 

192  /(. 

xlviii.  14 

38,67 

xxiii.  16. 19 

187  «.,    295  f. 

xlviii.  15 

57 

xxv.-xxxi. 

170 

xlviii.  21 

34,  38.  71  ff. 

XXV.  10 

202 

xlix.  6 

289 

xxvi.  -xl. 

152  ff. 

xlix.  20 

163 

xxvi.  18 

152  f. 

xlix.  28 

34,  38 

xxvi.  20,  22,  35 

153 

xlix.  29,  30,  31,  32 
1.2 

45 

38 

xxvii.  2  . 
xxvii.  9 

146 
152  ff. 

1.13 

45 

xxvii.  11, 12. 

13 

1.54  f. 

1.25 

71 

xxviii.  41 

245  ». 

EXODUS 

XX ix.  7 

245  /(.,  246  ». 

i.  5 

202 

xxix.  13-Nui] 

11.  xviii. 

17                206 

iii.  19 

75 

xxix.  21 

24t)  n. 

iv.  14 

248,  250 

XXX.  1-9 

254 

iv.  25 

87 

XXX.  2.  3 

146 

vi.  3 

148 

XXX.  15 

299 

vi.  19 

251 

XXX.  30 

246  n. 

viii.  22 
ix.  2G 
X.  21-23 

201 

xxxii.  26-29 

251 

201 

xxxiii.  7 

148 

201 

xxxiv. 

192  n..  2f)()  n. 

xii.  3 

184 

xxxiv.  10-26 

180 

xii.  0 

206 

xxxiv.  19  ft'. 

193 

xii.  23 

75 

xxxiv.  22 

187  "..   295 

xiii.  Iff. 

193 

xxxiv.  25 

20(i  n. 

xiii.  9 

217  n. 

xxxiv.  26 

187  »..  295 

xiv. 

210  n. 

xxxvi.  23 

1.52  f. 

xiv.  5 

75 

xxxviii.9-13 

1.55  f. 

xiv.  27  f. 
xvi.  4 
xvi.  32 

209 
217". 

xxxviii.9 
xxxviii.  21 

152 
233 

149 

xl.  13.  15 

246  n. 

xvii. 

69 

xl.  24 

1.52 

342 


Pcntatcuchal  Studies 


LEVITICUS 

NUMBERS 

i.-xv. 

170 

i.  50-53 

233 

i.-vii. 

186,   205  f. 

iii.,  iv. 

235 

i. 

247 

iii.  3 

245 

i.2 

187 

iii.  4 

287 

i.  7,  8, 11 

244 

iii.  6-10 

233  f. 

ii.  3 

187  n. 

iii.  7,  8.  11  ff.,  25  f. 

234 

ii.  11-lG 

295 

iv. 

237  n.,  243 

ii.  11  f. 

296??. 

iv.4 

234 

iii.  2 

248 

iv.  15 

235 

iv. 

188 

iv.  19 

243 

vii.  12-14 

187  w. 

iv.  20 

239 

vii.  34 

291  f. 

iv. 21-28 

235 

vii.  35 

240 11. 

iv.  32 

243 

viii.  30 

246  n. 

V.  9-10 

193,  294 

ix.22 

257 

vi.  22-27 

256  f. 

X. 

254 

vii. 

244 

X.  7 

246  »i. 

vii.  5  ff. 

236 

X.  10 

278 

viii. 

237  «.,  244 

xiii.  f. 

246 

viii.  22 

235  n. 

xiii.  2 

244 

viii.  26 

236 

xiii.  47  ff. 

247 

xi.5 

10 

xiv. 

247 

xi.22 

206  n. 

xiv.  33-53 

247 

xi.  31-33 

10 

xiv. 54-57 

216 

xiii.  2-16 

202 

xvi. 

170, 192 

xiii.  20 

296  n. 

xvi.  12  f. 

254 

xiv.  4 

167 

xvii.  5 

293  « 

xiv.  16 

206  n. 

xviii.-xx. 

182, 189 

xiv.  33 

202 

xvlii.  21 

165 

XV.  3  ff. 

187 

xviii.  29 

189 

XV.  17-21 

296  n. 

xix. 

183, 189  f. 

XV.  20 

294 

xix.  2 

330 

xvi.  3 

254 

xix.  .5-8 

189 

xvi.  9  f. 

237 

xix.  14 

177 

xvii.  5  (xvi.  40) 

254  f . 

xix.  20 

189 

xvii.  11  f.  (xvi.  46) 

254 

XX. 

190  f.,  334 

xviii. 

294  f. 

XX.  1-5 

165 

xviii.  3 

234,  236,  2.39 

XX.  2-5 

190 

xviii.  4,  5,  6 

236 

XX.  3 

189 

xviii.  12 

294  f., 296  n. 

xx.9ff.,   15  f.,  27 

190 

xviii.  13 

294  f. 

xxi.  10, 32 

245  n. 

xviii.  35-18 

194 

xxiii. 

192  n. 

xviii.  15  f. 

293  f . 

xxiii.  10-20 

295 

xviii.  17 

206 

xxiii.  27 

192 

xviii.  27 

295 

xxiv.  5-8 

2.39 

XX. 

69 

xxv.-xxvi. 

180 

XX.  21 

75 

XXV. 

176,  233 

xxi.  9 

149 

XXV.  20  ff. 

331  n. 

xxi.  23 

75 

XXV.  43,  53 

176 

xxii.  4 

289 

xxvi. 

177  f. 

xxii.  13 

75,  202 

xxvi.  42 

205 

xxii.  .37 

75 

XXV ii.  20  f. 

193 

xxiii.  21 

163 

xxvii.  32 

298  f. 

xxiv.  4, 16 

75  f. 

Index  I 


343 


NUMBERS 

DEUTERONOMY 

XXV.  2  f . 

229 

xvii.  20 

159  f., 

166, 166  n. 

xxviii.-xxix. 

185 

xviii. 

256 

xxix.  8 

192 

xviii.  1-8 

255 

xxix.  12  (13) 

202 

xviii.  1 

.301 

XXX. 

182 

xviii.  3 

201  ff. 

xxxi. 

10 

xviii.  4 

188  n.,  294,    296  n. 

xxxi.  18 

10 

xviii.  6-8 

252  f.,  255 

xxxii.  13 

202 

xviii.  8 

256,  291,  302 

xxxiii. 

10 

xviii.  10 

190 

xxxiii.  2G 

295 

xviii.  12, 13 

294 

XXXV. 

288, 300 

xviii.  14 

75 

XXXV.  9-34 

180 

xxi.  1-9 

252,  288 

XXXV.  28 

288 

xxi.  5 

253 

xxxvi. 

11 

xxi.  8b 
xxi.  15  ff. 

170 

220  n. 

DEUTERONOMY 

xxi.  18-21 

86, 182  n. 

i.23 

ii.  2-14 

202 
202 
202 
224 
289 
202 
328 

xxii.  5-12 
xxii.  30 
xxiii.  15  ff. 

183/1. 
190 
334 

iii.  27 
iii.28 
v.  22 

xxiv.  8 
xxiv.  16 
xxvi. 

216,  217 

».,  252,  253 
332 
297 

viii.  2 

xxvi.  1-11 

188  n.,  294 

A'iii.  3 

xxvi.  1-10 

296  n. 

viii.  7-9 

333 

xxvi.  1  f . 

294 

ix.  10 
ix.22 
X.3 
X.6 

289 
G9n. 
202 
251 
301 
202 

210  w. 

210  n. 

xxvi.  2. 12  f. 
xxvii.  9 
xxvii.  18 
xxviii.  34-41 

294 

257 

177 

214  n. 

X.  9 

xxviii.  36 

163  f. 

X.  22 
xi.4 
xi.5 

209. 

xxviii.  69  (xxix.  1) 
xxix.  12  f. 
xxxi.  6,  7 

210 

202  f. 

224 

xi.  11 
xii. 

188, 104 

xxxi.  14  f. 
xxxi.  23 

171 
224 

xii.  6, 11 

292 

xxxi.  .30 

289 

xxi.  20 

xxxii.  42    - 

161 

xiii.6 
xiv.  22  ff. 

179  n. 
297 
298 

nn  1 

xxxiii.  4 
xxxiii.  5 

169 
163  f. 

xiv.  23 

xxxiii.  8-11 

251 

XV. 

XV.  12-18 
XV.  19  ff . 
xvi. 

186  n. 

194,  293  f . 

192  f.,  192  M. 

xxxiii.  8 
xxxiii.  10 
xxxiv.  10 

69  n. 
253 

75 

xvi.  21  f. 
xvii.  1 

183  H. 
184 

JOSHUA 

xvii.  11 

217  ». 

ii.  15 

149 

xvii.  12 

255 

iii.  8,  13, 14.  ] 

L7 

258 

xvii.  14^20 

157  ff. 

iv.9 

258 

xvii.  14 

15T 

'  f.,  165 

V.  3  ff. 

87 

xvii.  15  f. 

158  f. 

.,  166  f. 

vii.  20 

75 

xvii.  17 

158  f. 

Viii.  35 

289 

xvii.  18 

158  f.,  166 

ix.  17 

268 

xvii.  19 

159  f.,  166 

X.  10 

75 

344 


Pcntatciiclial  Studies 


JOSHUA 

II    SAMUEL 

xiv.  15 

27 

vi.  20 

200 

xviii.  1 

262 

viii.  17a 

260 

xviii.  7 

258 

viii.  18 

2(»f. 

xviii.  24,  25,  28 

268 

xiv.  14 

300 

xxi. 

301 

XV.  12 

262 

xxi.  14 

261 

XX.  26 

261,  302 

xxi.  17 

269 

xxiii.  38 

261 

xxii. 

225  ff. 

xxii.  10 

228 

I    KINGS 

xxii.  17, 19 

229 

xxii.  28 

225 

1.50 
ii. 

146 
260,  262 

JUDGES 

ii.26 

ii.27 

301 
273 

xiii.  19,  23 

187  n. 

ii.28 

146, 

299  n.,  300 

xiv.  8 

289 

ii.  34 

262 

xvii.  7 

249 

ii.  35 

274 

xvii.  13 

258 

iii.  4 

303 

xviii.  30 

249 

iv.5 

viii.  4 

262 
268,  274 

I    SAMUEL 

viii.  14 

289 

i.20 

ii.  12-16 
ii.  12 
ii.  18  f. 
ii.  27-36 
ii.27 
ii.  36 

107 
291 
292 
264 
272 
262 
287,  290 

viii.  56  tt'. 
viii.  63 
viii.  64 

260 

248 

187  n. 

xii.  20 
xii.  31 
xix.  32 
XX.  23.  28 

289 

273  f.,  301 

75 

20 

iii.  13 

160 

xxi.  10, 13 

160 

iii.  15 

264 

vi. 

266 

in 

KIKGDOMS    LXX 

vi.  13-15 
vl.  14, 15 

302 
266  f. 

ii.  4011 

261  f. 

vil.  1 

267 

vii.  2-17 

167 

II    KINGS 

vii.  2 
viii. 
viii.  17 
ix.9 
X.  5 

265 
107 
298 
28 
269 

xii.  S,  10, 1] 
xvi. 
xvi.  13 
xvi.  15 

275 
275 

86. 187  n. 
281  n. 

X. 17-27a 
xii. 

xii.  6,  8 
xiii.  3 

167 
167 
273 
269 

xix.  2 
xix.  32 
xxiii.  4 
XXV.  18 

275 

75 

275 

275 

xvii.  47 

289 

XXV.  11 

145 

ISAIAH 

xxviii.  6 

274 

viii.  21 
X.  S.  10 

160 
160 

II    SAMUEL 

X.  12 

161 

vi. 

267 

X.  29 

268 

vi.  13 

271 

xxii.  15 

261 

vi.  18 

259 

x.xxvii.  2 

275 

Index  I 


345 


JEREMIAH 


ZECHAKIAH 


i. 

i.  1 

vii.  12.  14 
xix.  1 
xxii.  IS 
xxvi.  ().  0 
xxvii.  19 
xxxii. 

xxxiii.  18-22 
xxxiii.  18-21 
xxxvii.  12 
lii.  24 


213 
302  f. 

2fi8 

275 

75 

2(58 


84. 


CO 

273 
275 
301 
275 


xiv.  21 


ii.  1-9 
iii.  3 


xii.  9 


273 
276 
27G 


106 


xii.  12 

xiii.  7 

xxii.  26 

xxviii.  2 

xxviii.  12 

xxviii.  22,  24 

xxix.  14, 15 

xl.  45  f. 

xii.  46 

xlii.  14 

xliii.  7  ff. 

xliv.  6-16 

xliv.  9-14 

xliv.  23 

xliv.  28 

xlv.  4  ff. 

xlv.  16f. 

xlv.  17 

xlvi.  2,  4-8, 11-18 

xlvl.  19-24 

xlviii. 


162 

75 
277 
161 

161  f. 
162 

162  f. 
278 
273 
280 
280 
279 

237  f. 

283  n. 
305 
280 

282  n. 
86 

281n. 

282  n. 
305 


xvii.  '^ 
XXX.  23 


iii.  1 

V.  5 

X.  33  (32) 

X.  36  (35) 

I 

ix.  3: 

2 

xviii 

.  17 

xxii. 

13 

xxiii 

i.  28 

xxiii 

i.29 

xxiii 

i.  30,  31 

XXV. 

XXV. 

4 

XXV. 

5,6 

xxvi 

i.  33  f. 

xxvi 

ii.  20 

I    CHRONICLES 


219  n. 
219  ». 


28 

85 

299 

296  n. 


238 
260 

224 

2.39 

238,  239 

239 

285  n. 

285  n. 

285  n.,  286  n. 

262 

224 


iv.  5 
V.  22,  25 


ii.5 
iv.8 
vi.  4 


187  II. 
187  n. 


289 

28 

273 


II     CHRONICLES 


xiii. 
xiii.  11 
xiii.  22 
xxiv.  27 
XXX.  27 
xxxii.  7 


285  «. 

238 

284, 284  n. 

284  n. 

257  II. 

004 


346 


PentatcuchaJ  Studies 


CODE  OF  HAMMURABI 


SECTION 
2 

7 

9ff. 

15-20 

20 

23fif. 

23 

25 

35-38 

42  ff. 

45 

46 

48 

49-52 

53-56 

57  ff. 

103 

104  ff. 

106 

107 

108 

115 

117 

120 

122  ff. 

132 

134 

138-140 

138 


PAGE 

SECTION 

308 

142  ff. 

313 

142 

311 

143 

334 

167 

308 

168  ff. 

326 

173,  174,  170 

308 

179 

311 

192, 193 

319 

195 

316,  324 

190-197 

323 

198 

323 

206-208 

316,  326 

206 

316 

218 

315 

318 

229  ff. 

308,  323 

229 

320 

237 

312 

249 

312 

250-252 

327 

259  ff. 

323 

261 

326 

263-267 

308 

263 

321 

265 

308 

266 

320 

267 

308 

275-277 

319 

278 

PAGE 

320 
319 
307  w. 
319 
813 
319 
321 
313 
311,  313 
309 
310 
324 
308 
321 
323 
310 
324 
314 
323 
323 
315 
317,  317  n. 
317  //. 
318 
312 
323 
318 
314 
323 


INDEX  II 

SUBJECTS 


Aaron,  233,  235  ff.,  243-248, 
250  f..  253-257,  272,  280  ff. ; 
called    "the   Levite."    248-250. 

Aaron,  Sous  of.  235  ff.,  243-248, 
250  f.,  253-257,  272,  280  ff. ; 
see  also  Zadok. 

Abiathar,  200,   274  f.,  282. 

Abinadab,  269  f. 

Abraham,  IS,  07  f.,  77-83,  87;  a 
personal  name,  8,  18;  called 
a  "  prophet,"  75  f. ;  acquisi- 
tion of  the  field  of  Machpelah, 
84. 

Admah,  5,  27. 

Ahitophel,  202. 

Aklba,    16,    128. 

Altar,  4,  86,  146;  lay  and 
'horned,  225-220,  299;  not  an 
asylum,  .300;  see  also  House 
and   Altar. 

Amnesty  for  fugitive  i^layer, 
288. 

Amorite,   land  of,   19. 

Amtachath,  42. 

Anathoth,  301  f. 

Animals,   list  of  forbidden,   183. 

Authropomorphism,  19  ff. ;  Sep- 
tuagintal    avoidance   of,    20. 

Apastamba,  316.  318. 

Appellations,  Divine,  3.  131  f.. 
139,  147;  in  Genesis,  51  ff.. 
55-61,  04  f..  71,  91,  114,  118; 
in  Job,  106;  see  also  Skin- 
ner's "  Genesis  "  and  Astruc. 
clue  of. 

Aquila,  16,  53,  111.  160.  103, 
166,  230. 

Arch.-eology,    7  f. 

Arch  on  and  cognates,  160-165; 
.see  also  King  and   ruler. 

Ark,  10;  carried  by  Levites,  256, 
263;  return  from  Philistines, 
265  f.;  abode  of,  26.5-268;  at 
Beth-shemesh,  266  f. ;  at  Kir- 
jathrjearim,  269  f. ;  taken  to 
Jerusalem,   271  f. 

Armenian.   166. 

Assyriologists.   S. 

Astruc,  clue  of.  4.  .38.  51ff...61, 
76.   105   )!.:  school   of,    138. 


Atonement,  Day  of,  170.  191. 
Aularch,  260  f. 

Babylonia,    legislation    of;     see 

Hanunurabi.   Code  of. 
Baentsch,  Bruno,  7. 
Barton,   G.   A..   13  ft". 
Baudissin,   242  «. 
Benaiah,  261. 
Ben  Asher,   131. 
Bethel,  26,  .301  f. 
Beth-shemesh,    266  f.,    301  f. 
Bible.  Hebrew.  6 ;  see  also  Mas- 

soretic  Text. 
Bikkurim,  187  n.,  294-298. 
Blass,  214  11. 
Blessing,  priestly  and  other,  257, 

259  f. 
Blood-feud,  85,   176,   ISO. 
Bohairic.  38,  244. 
Bootv,   laws  of.   10. 
Boyd,  J.  O.,  225  f. 
Briggs,    C.    A.,    105    n.,    127-133, 

135,     197,    217  f.;     and    S.     R. 

Drivei*,     correspondence     with, 

90-113.  127,   135. 
Brown.  F.,  197. 
Biihler,   316. 
Burney,  C.  F.,  8. 
Burnt-offerings,   186. 

Cain,  64,  85. 

Caleb.   27. 

"Canaan,     land    of,"     73  f.,    80; 

division   of,  282  n.,  ,300  f. 
"Canaanite   and  Perizzite,"   26. 
"Captain  of  the  guard,"   30  ff\ 
Carpenter.  J.    Estlin,  26,   31,  40, 

192,  199,  258. 
Cases,    decided ;   see   Legislation. 
Cheyne.  T.  K.,  261. 
Chronicler,     2.59,     260  f.,    284 »., 

285  71.,  286  n. 
Chronology,   difficulties  of,   23. 
Chrysostcm,  36  f. 
Circumcision.    87. 
Cities  of  refuge.  85.   180.  300. 
Commentaries,   Jewish,   16. 
Common  Prayer,  Book  of,  130. 
Condamiu,  93. 


34"; 


348 


Pentatcnchal  Studies 


"Congregation,"  289. 

Conquest,  laws  of,  10. 

Conveyance,  of  field  of  Machpe- 
lah,  84;   in  Jeremiah,  84. 

Corban,  171,   186,   187  n. 

Cornill,  C.   H.,  204. 

Corruptions  of  text;  see  Criti- 
cism, textual. 

Courts,    con.stltution   of,    182  f. 

Covenant.  204  f. ;  between  God 
and  Israel,  178,  330;  at  Sinai, 
180,  190.  192 «.;  land,  180; 
Deuteronomy,  ISO ;  rest  of 
legislation,  180;  book  of  the, 
296,   298. 

Cox,   A.   P.,  52,   92,    1.38  ff. 

Criminal  Law ;  see  Hammurabi, 
Code   of.    Legislation. 

Criticism,  principles  of  conser- 
vative, work  on,  Iff.,  124  ff., 
19.5:  textual,  6  f.,  11.  15,  19  f., 
22  ff.,  27  f.,  129,  157-168,2311, 
2.34  f.,  2.37,  243  ff.,  249.  261, 
266  f..  274;  bearing  of  textual, 
on  history  and  faith,  1.3-18 ; 
textual,  of  story  of  Joseph, 
29^8  ;  textual,  of  Genesis  ;  see 
Skinner's  "  Genesis."  Isaac ; 
textual,  of  concluding  chapters 
of  Exodus,  152,  156:  textual, 
of  concluding  chapters  of 
Numbers,  15,  203;  textual,  im- 
portance of,  129-137 ;  and  see 
Glosses,  Massoretic  Text,  Sep- 
tuagint ;  higher,  see  Higher 
Criticism. 

Cuq,  E.,  319. 

Ciirses.  177.  Ill  n.,  179,  191; 
and  see  Legislation,  appeal 
to  religion. 

Curtis,    284  v?„    285r(.,    286  h. 

D,  75,  82.  85  f.,  171.  187,  202- 
206,  251,  256. 

Dahse.  J.,  13.  52.  55,  90. 

Dan,   28. 

Dareste,  288. 

David ;  sec  Ark.  Blessing. 

Deborah,   Song  of,  64. 

Debtors,    insolvent.    175f. 

Decalogue,  192 «.;  Mosaic  au- 
thorship of.  S ;  and  .sec  Cove- 
nant.  Sinaitic. 

De  Morgan,   306. 

De  Rossi,  36,  38. 


Descriptions,  contemporary,  true 
to  life,  10. 

Deuteronomy,  style  of.  195-224 
unity  of,  31;  Mosaic  author 
ship  of,  169;  legislation  of, 
see  Legislation ;  intended  for 
public  reading,  181 ;  construe 
tion  of,  210 ;  rhythm  of,  213  f . ; 
see   also   Driver. 

Dillmann,   A.,  149. 

Discrepancies  in  Pentateurfi ; 
see  Pentateuch. 

Dittography,    166. 

Divine  appellations ;  see  Appel- 
lations. 

Documents,  clue  to ;  see  Astruc. 

Dooms.   180. 

Door  and  Sanctuary.  148;  see 
also  House  and  Altar. 

DouI>lets,   30,   34.   35. 

Drink-offering,  86.  187,  187  n. 

Driver,  S.  R.,  22  f.,  28,  134  f.. 
137  w.,  167,  170-173,  197-213; 
on  Exodus,  14.3-151 ;  see  also 
Briggs. 

Duhm,  P...  161. 

E,  13,  31,  34-38.  41,  45,  59,  66- 

76,   81n.,  82,  86  f.,  206  n.,  250, 

258;  see  also  JE. 
Ex.    70. 

Eder,  tower  of.  28. 
Eerdmans,    7,    13,    52,    54  f.,    106, 

111,   117  f.,   125 «.,   133,   143. 
Egyptian   life.    10. 
Eleazar.  son  of  Aaron.  244.  251 ; 

son  of  Ahinadab,  267  f.,  270. 
Eli  and  his  sons,  160,  205,  282  «., 

287,  291. 
Eli,  house  of,  272  f. 
EloJiim,     148 «.,     1.50;     and     see 

Appellations. 
Esau,  22,  24,  67,  77. 
Exodus ;  see  Driver.  Legislation. 
Ethiopic,  36  f.,  166.  169. 
Ezekiel,   style  of,   199  f. ;  picture 

of    future    Israel,    304  f,;    and 

see  Priests. 

F.MTir ;   Kcc  Criticism. 
Feast  of  Weeks.  278.  295. 
Field.   F. ;  see  Ilexapla. 
First-fruits;    see    liikkiirim,    Re- 

shith. 
Firstlings,   192-194,   293  f. 


Index  JI 


349 


Gautama,   318. 

Geba ;  see  Gibeah. 

Genesis,  early  chapters  of,  5 ; 
unity  of,  11 ;  clironolo^'y  of, 
76,  81  f. ;  aud  sec  Isaac ;  his- 
torical ■  cliaracter  of,  87  f. ; 
Post-Mosaica  of;  see  Post- 
Mosaica;  'opening  words  of, 
207 ;  text  of,  see  Slcinner  and 
Criticism  ;  Divine  appellations  . 
in,   see  Appellations. 

Gesenius-Kantzsch,   149. 

Gibeah,   Gibeon,    Geba.    268  f. 

Gideon,   sacrifice  by,   259 «. 

Giesebrecht,    73. 

Glosses,  15,  26,  28-38,  40^5.  48, 
59,  69  n.,  70  f.,  74,  81  f.,  152  f., 
159-163.  165,  166,  234  f.,  254  f., 
200,   275. 

GoniorraTi.  5,   27. 

Gordon,  A.  R.,  90-04,  137f.,  140  n. ; 
correspondence    with,    114-123. 

Gottsberger,  57 /?.,   58  n. 

Graf-Wellhausen  theory ;  see 
Wellhausen. 

Gray,  G.  B.,  10. 

Green.  W.   H.,  167. 

(rressinann,    64. 

Grimths,  J.   S.,  124. 

Gnilt-offering,   170,   188. 

Gunkel,  58. 

IT.  204. 

Ilagar,  67,  68,  78,  81. 

Hammurabi,  Code  of,  8,  306- 
338;  conditions  in  which  com- 
piled. 306  f.;  influence  of 
V  early  ideas.  307-313;  geo- 
graphical influence.  ,31.3-319 ; 
resemblances  of.  to  early  He- 
brew custom,  328  f. ;  divorce 
in,  and  in  Sumerian  legisla- 
tion, 307;  talion  in,  .309  f. ; 
symjiathetic  talion  in.  310  f. ; 
hind  laws:  315  f ;  Indian  par- 
allel to  land  laws.  316;  law 
of  theft  in,  311  f. ;  parallel 
from  Narada  to,  311 ;  com- 
pared with  Roman.  325  f. ; 
laws  of  employers  in.  with 
Indian  parallel.  317  f. ;  law 
of  liability  for  damage  done 
bv  sheep  in.  with  Indian  par- 
allel, 318  f. ;  laws  of  property 
in    connection    with    marriage 


in,  MIO ;  laws  as  to  royal  oflS- 
cers  with  English  parallel, 
319  f.;  laws  of  marriage,  320; 
later  legal  machinery  in, 
.■'>20  f. ;  law  of  legal  docu- 
ments, .321  f. ;  law  of  succes- 
sion and  settlements,  321 ;  fees 
for  work  done  and  Indian 
Itarallel.  321  f. ;  penalties  for 
want  of  care  or  skill,  321  f. ; 
laws  of  property,  322  f. ;  pa- 
tria  potestas  in,  312  f. ;  class 
distinctions.  .322,  327;  treat- 
ment of  intellectual  element 
in  offenses,  323  f. ;  character- 
istics of,  .320-329;  savage  na- 
ture of,  324  f.;  obiect,  325  ff., 
338;  ideals  of.  325.  327,  338; 
comparison  with  Hebrew  code, 
32S-3.33 :  l)oat-hire  in.  and 
Mann.    313  f. 

Ilarford-Battersby,    G.,    199. 

Harper,   W.   R.,  1.34. 

Heave-offering.    294. 

"  Hebrews,   land  of  the,"   27  f. 

Hebron.  27. 

Hexapla,  33.  35,  111,  llS,  135, 
157,   160-165,  249,   261. 

High  Priest,  245,  287  ff. :  and 
see  Aaron.  Eli,  Priests,  Zadok. 

Hisher  Criticism,  arguments  of, 
i-9,  19  ff..  23  ff..  26  ff..  30  f., 
34  f.,  .58  ff.,  62-66,  67  f..  169- 
224.  231-283,  287  ff.,  290  ff. ; 
often  destroyed  by  textual 
criticism,  30  f.,  71 ;  see  also 
Astruc.  Briggs,  Driver,  Skin- 
ner, Wellhausen. 

Flifetory,  see  Criticism ;  influence 
of,  on  law,  see  Hammurabi. 

Ilitzig,   261. 

Holmes.   .34,    164. 

Homicide.  Noah's  law  of.  84 ; 
Babylonian  law.  84;  Cain.  85; 
see  Cities  of  Refuge,  Hammu- 
rabi. 

Homoeoteleuton,   31  n. 

Hoonacker ;  see  Van  Hoonacker. 

Ilort,  135. 

House  and  Altar.  4,  225:  see 
also  Sanctuary. 

Hushai,  262. 

Idolatry,  prohibition  of.   192  w. 
Incense.  2,54. 


350 


Pcntatcuchal  Studies 


Inheritance,   11. 

Injunction,    175. 

Ira,  261. 

Isaac,  age  of,  22  ff.,  67,  69,  77. 

Ishmael,  23,  78  f.,  82. 

Islimaelites ;    see   Josepli. 

Israel ;  see  Jacob. 

J,  6,  26,  31,  32-38.  41.  45,  58  ff., 
63,  66-71,  79-82,  86  f.,  88,  208, 
251,  258;  see  also  JE. 

JS  13. 

J=,  13. 

Jx,  70. 

Jacob,  22,  24,  67,  71-73,  77; 
names  of,  34-38,  41 ;  vow  of, 
298. 

Jairite ;  see  Ira. 

Jamnia,  school   of,  128,   130. 

Jattirite;  see  Ira. 

JE.  77,  81,  83,  85  f.,  171.  181  n., 
202-206,  209  f.,  212,  213,  248. 

Jealousy,   law  of,   189. 

Jeremiah,  style  of,  199  f. ;  his 
holding  at  Anathoth,   301  f. 

Jeroboam,  273,  301. 

Jerome,   33,  40. 

Jewish   Quarterly  Review,   124. 

Joab,  300. 

Jonathan,   249,    258. 

Joseph,  Story  of,  70-73 ;  discrep- 
ancies, 30  ff.,  41  f.,  45-48;  his- 
torical difficulty  of,  39  ff. ; 
recognition  of  brethren,  34, 
41 ;  unity  of  narrative,  42,  67 ; 
in  prison,  30-33 ;  sale  of  corn. 
.39-41 ;  discovery  of  returned 
money,  43  f. ;  Judah  and  Reu- 
ben,   45. 

Joshua,  251, 

Jubilee,  170,  177,  ]81n. 

Judah,   45,    45 ».,    85  f.,    SO. 

Jurisprudence,  comparative,  evi- 
dence of,  83  ff. 

Jus  vita}  necisgne;  see  Patria. 

Kalchi,  64. 

Kautzsch,   148  n. 

Keil,    22. 

Kennicott,  36  f. 

Kent,  C.  F.,  146. 

King  and  ruler,  157-168,  282  n. 

King's  friepd,  262. 

King's  offering,   281  n. 

King,  L..  314. 

Kirjath-jearim,   268  f. 


Klostermann,  52,  135, 
Kobath  ;  see  Priests. 
Konig,  E.,  27,  169. 
Korah,  254  f. 
Korban ;  see  Corban, 
Kraetzschmar.    83,    162. 
Kuenen,   74,   240. 
Kulischer,  85  n. 
Kyrios;   see  Appellations. 

Lagarde,  135,  245  n. 

Land    laws,    170,    172,    176,    179, 

ISO  ff, ;  and  see  Hammurabi. 
Law  of  sacrifice,  sacred  sea- 
sons, moral  and  religious  du- 
ties, 181  f . ;  priestly,  184 ;  in 
Genesis,  219  f. ;  see  also  Legis- 
lation. 

Legislation,  "  pre-Israelite,"  8 ; 
in  Exodus.  8 ;  date  of  Priestly, 
10 ;  historical  evolution  of,  11 ; 
Mosaic  authenticity  of  Penta- 
teuchal.  11 ;  Deuteronomic, 
170-193 ;  means  of  enforcing, 
174;  absence  of  central  pow- 
er, 176 ;  regulates  private 
revenge,  176 ;  appeal  to  relig- 
ion, 177  and  nn. ;  priestly 
teaching,  184,  191,  282,  283  n. ; 
substantive  law  and  procedure 
in,  185 ;  constitutional,  ad- 
ministrative, and  laws  of  war, 
182;  public  and  private,  182; 
oaths  and  vows,  182 ;  groups 
of,  ISOf. ;  by  courts,  179;  ap- 
peal to  history  in,  179 »,; 
jural  law,  181  fT.,  189  f.,  191  f., 
306;  compared  with  Code  of 
Hammurabi,   328-333. 

Leprosy,  laws  of,  189,  246.  247, 
252  f..   256. 

Levites ;  see  Priests. 

Levitical  Cities,  170,  181  and  «., 
256.   301-304. 

Linguistic  evidence,  62,  65,  68  n., 
69,  71. 

Lot,   78  f. 

Lucian.  38,  53,  118,  1.35.  261  f. 

j\lA0CAI5EAN    Toxt.     105,    1.30. 

Machpelah,    Field   of,    84. 
McNeile.   A.  H„   143. 
Madson,  284  «. 
Maine,   Sir  H.,  .308. 
Manasseh ;  see 


Index  II 


351 


Manoah,   sacrifice  by,  259 ». 

Manu,  313  f.,  317. 

Manumission  of  slaves,  174, 
180  n. 

Marriage ;   see   Hammurabi. 

Massali    and    Meribali,    G9  h. 

Massoretic  Text,  0,  16,  19  f.,  23, 
29-38,  3!)-48,  50-61,  90  f.,  103- 
122,  127-134,  138  f.,  152-155, 
157-168,  234  f.,  238,  244,  248  f., 
260,  268  f.;   history  of,  128  f. 

Meal-ofiCering.  170.  ISGf.,  295, 
297. 

Melelc  and  cognates ;  see  King. 

Meribah,    69  ». 

Micah,  273. 

Midianites  ;   see  Joseph. 

Midianitish  women,   10  f. 

Moller,   W.,   125. 

Moloch.  165,  190. 

Monotheism,    early  date  of,    7. 

Morgan ;   see  De   Morgan. 

"  Moriah,  land  of,"  19. 

Mosaic  age,  our  knowledge  of,  7. 

Moses,  169,  171,  200;  laws  of; 
see  Legislation ;  motives  of, 
173;  limitations  under  which 
legislated,  174^179;  as  orator, 
213  f. ;  stylistic  models,  213  fC. ; 
corruption  of  name  of,  249 ; 
blessing  of.  251 ;  grandson  of, 
see  Jonathan. 

Mountains.   God  of,  20  f. 

Murder,  law  of ;  see  Amnesty, 
Cain,  Homicide. 

Naboth,  160. 

Narada,    .308  f..    311,    31.3,     317; 

and  see  Hammurabi. 
Nazirites.  law  of,   189. 
Negeb,   152-156. 
Nethiuim.   283. 
New  Testament,  quotations  from 

LXX   in,    17. 
Niooll.  Sir  W.  R.,  94. 
Noah,  83  f. 
Norden,  214. 
Numbers ;  see  Criticism. 
Numbers,   use  of  round,  23. 

Obed-edom,  271. 
Occasional   commands.    184. 
Offenses ;    see   Hammurabi. 
Old  Latin,  37.  155.  157,  166,  233, 
244. 


Old  Testament,  Canon  of,   128. 

Origen,   35,    163,    262. 

Orr,   J.,   12,  28,   66-69,   221. 

P,  11,  13,  34-38,  43  f.,  59,  69 
70,  73  f.,  77,  82  ff.,  86,  89, 
170  f.,  202,  206,  208  ff.,  212 
233,   237-242,   252-258,   277  f. 

Fatria    Potestas,    85,    328,    33: 
and  see  Hammurabi. 

Peace-offering,    186,    189,   293 «. 

Pentateuch,  in.,  6,  11,  173,  245, 
287. 

Perizzite;  see  Canaanite. 

Plague^-,  story  of,  201. 

Poels,  H.   A.,  269  f. 

Poll-tax,  299. 

Post,  A.  H.,  85  ».,  310,  311. 

Post  on  Gains,  311  f. 

I'ostgate,  J.  P.,  136. 

I'ost-Mosaica,  the,  of  Genesis, 
26  ff. 

Potiphar,  30  f. 

Pre-Mosaica,  5  f.,  27,  63  f.,  87, 
123. 

Priests.  190,  244-248,  251-257: 
in  Ex.  xix.,  2.30;  Zadokite 
see  Zadok;  dues  payable  to 
193  f.,  290  ft".;  and  Levites,  167 
170,  191  f.,  231-283;  and  Le 
vites  in  P,  233-244,  252-257 
282;  in  JE,  248-251;  in  D, 
252-257,  282;  in  Joshua,  257  f 
in  Judges,  258  f.,  273;  in  Sam- 
uel and  Kings,  259-275 ;  in 
Jeremiah,  Haggai,  and  Mala- 
c-hi,  276;  in  Ezekiel,  237  f., 
241  f.,  273,  277-281,  281 J^., 
282  ff.;  in  Chronicles,  238  ff., 
241  f. ;  in  time  of  Nehemiah, 
283 ».;  numbers  of,  243; 
Aaronic  priesthood  practically 
merged  in  Levitical,  252  f. ; 
summary,    281-284. 

Procedure;   see  Legislation. 

Prohibited  degrees,  189. 

Property ;    see   Hammurabi. 

"  Prophet,"  28,  75  f. 

Psalter,   text  of,   130. 

Puuklvo,  A.   F.,   7f. 

Quails,  flight  of,  10. 
Quasi-jurat,   178. 

R ;  see  Redactor. 


352 


Pcntatciichal  Studies 


Rebekah,  22. 

Redactor,  31.  34,   36,  38,  40,   68, 

71,  72-76.  258. 
Rje,   206  n. 
Redpatb,    H.   A.,    52,    54,   55,    58, 

61,  116,  118. 
Religious   capital,   193,   194. 
Repetitions,  182. 
RcshHh,  294-298. 
Reuben,  45,  45  w.,  85. 
Roman   law ;   see   Hammurabi. 
Rotbaris,  312. 

Sabbath  year,   176,  181  n. 

Sacrifice,  80  f..  170,  172,  183  f., 
186  lie.,  191  f.,  247  f.,  259,  292- 
297;  and  see  Altar,  Gideon, 
Mauoab.    Solomon. 

Sabidic,    169. 

Salem,  28. 

Samaritan  Pentateucb.  39  n.,  53, 
54,   91,   106,    110  f.,   166 «. 

Samuel,   167  f.,  263  ff. 

Sanctuary ;  see  Altar,  Door. 

Sag,  42.  f. 

Sara'b,  30,  76,  78. 

Saul,  6n. 

Sayce,  A.  H.,  314  f. 

Scbmidt,   Aage,   125. 

Scblogl,  N.  J.,  14.  53,  54,  91,  96, 
98,  106,  113  f.,   133,   140  f. 

Sea,  26  f. 

Sellin,  E.,  8. 

Septuagint,  16  f.,  19  f.,  23,  24, 
27  f.,  29-38,  39«.,  40-48,  50- 
61.  72  f.,  79-82,  103-122,  127- 
134,  138.  152-155,  157-169, 
234  f.,  244,  249f.,  251n.,  260ff., 
269,  272,  274,  276,  279;  and 
see  Skinner's  "  Genesis  "  ;  He- 
brew corroboration  of.  vari- 
ant, 92,  96,  106,   110  f..  357. 

Settlement ;    see   Hammurabi. 

Sexual  offenses,  190. 

Sbaddai ;  see  Appellations,  in 
Job. 

Silence,  arguments  from.  170- 
194. 

Sin-offering,    170  f.,   188. 

Skinner,  J.,  14.  138-141;  edition 
of  Genesis,  49-89,  90-123. 

Slaves ;  see  Hammurabi,  Prop- 
erty,  Manumission. 

Slaughter,  non-sacriflcial,  62,  86, 
116,    123,    145,   292  f.,   293 ». 


Smitb,  H.  P.,  133  f. 

Smith,  W.  R.,   105 ».,   129,  152. 

Sodom,  5,  27. 

Solomon,  time  of,  19,  26;  sup- 
posed reminiscences  of,  167 ; 
Temple  of,  239,  281;  sons  of 
the  servants  of,  283;  sacrifice 
by,  248;  deposes  Abiatbar, 
274,  282 ;  blessing  of ;  see 
Blessing. 

Spinoza,  201. 

Steuernagel,   4  n. 

Style,  argument  from,  5,  67  f., 
71-75,  80;  in  Deuteronomy, 
195-224;  in  Lev.  i.-vii.,  205  f. ; 
terseness  of,  in  codes  memor- 
ized,  181,    190. 

Substantive  law;  see  Legisla- 
tion. 

Succession ;   see  Hammurabi. 

Sumerian  legislation,  307. 

Swete,   H.  B.,  20,  50,   58".,   104. 

Symmacbus,  160 ».,  162  f.,  261, 
261  n. 

Syriac,  16,  37,  54  ff.,  97,  118, 
261,  275  f.,  279. 

Syro-Hexaplar,    37. 

Talion  ;   see  Hammurabi. 

Targums,  16.  53,  111,  269,  275. 

Tel  el-Amarua  tablets,  8,  28. 

Tent    "a"    and    "  tbe,"    148  f. 

Tent  of  Meeting,  170  f.,  193 «.. 
268. 

Tenimah,  295. 

Tetragranunaton ;  sec  Appella- 
tions.  Astruc. 

Textual  Criticism ;  see  Criticism. 

Theft;  see  Hammurabi. 

Theodotion,    160,   162  f.,  261. 

Thcos;  see  Appellations. 

Tigris.  64. 

Tisdall,  W.  St.  Clair,  124. 

Tithe,  294,  296  ff. 

Toy,  C.  H.,  9,  61,  105??.,   132  ff. 

Transpositions,  15. 

Tribal  System,  11. 

Troelstra,   A.,   125  w.,   230. 

UzzAH,  270. 

Van     Hoonacker,     269  f.,   282 ».. 

.•iOl,  305. 
Variants ;  see  Criticism. 
Vatican    MS.,   169. 


Index  II 


353 


Versions,  ancient,  6,  16,  50,  53, 
66,  105  n.,  117,  132  f.,  135,  235, 
268;  see  also  Old  Latin,  Septu- 
agint,  Syriac,  Syro-Hexaplar, 
Targums,  Vulgate,  Aquila, 
Symmaclius,  Theodotion,  Bo- 
hairic,  f^aliidic,  Ethiopic,  Ar- 
menian. 

Vetter,  57  n. 

Vulgate,  17,  31  «..  32,  33  n.,  34  n., 
35  ff.,  39  w.,  41,  69  n.,  81  f., 
105  n.,  130,  233,  244,  245, 
251??.,  275  f.,  279. 

Wave-offering,  295,  297. 
"Weeks ;  see  Feast. 
Weiss,  J.,  152. 


Weimausen,  J.,  4,  70,  144,  230; 
School  of,  7,  13,  14,  116  f., 
119  f.,  123,  145,  225;  Prolego- 
mena of,  8;  fourth  chapter  of, 
231-289;  fifth  chapter  of, 
290-305. 

West;  see  Sea. 

Witchcraft,  190. 

"Word,"  218-222. 

Wright,  G.   Frederick,  88. 

Writing,   84,   175,    336. 

Zabud,  262. 

Zadok,   Sons  of  Zadok,  200,  205, 

271-275.   278  ff.,   282  f. 
Zeboiim,  5,  27. 


Essays    in    Pentateuchal    Criticism 

By  HAROLD  M.  WIENER,  M.A.,  LL.B. 

Lincoln's  Inn,  Barrister-at-Law 

255  pages,  8'vo 

"He  [the  author]  has  brought  together  in  this  volume  a  mass 
of  learued  observation  and  argument  which  cannot  be  disregarded, 
and  we  await  with  interest  the  answers  whidh  it  claims  in  detail 
from  the  representatives  of  the  critical  school  in  this  country." 
—The  Very  Rev.  Henry  Wage,  D.D.,  Dean  of  Canterbury,  in  The 
Ch urchman   ( London ) . 

"  No  one  can  face  this  argumentation  and  continue  to  hold  the 
Wellhausen  divisive  theory  concerning  the  Pentateuch  without 
finding  for  himself  what  is  for  him  a  sufficient  answer  thereto. 
Self-respect  could  allow  no  less." — Professor  M.  G.  Kyle,  D.D. 

"  The  author  shows  himself  a  serious  and  painstaking  scTiolar, 
and  here  launches  a  formidable  attack  against  the  widely  accepted 
Documentary  Theory  as  to  the  origin  and  structure  of  the  Penta- 
teuch."— Principal  J.  S.  Clemens,  in  The  United  Methodist  Maga- 
zine. 

"  These  Essays  deserve  the  careful  consideration  of  all  those 
who  .  .  .  desire  to  know  w'hether  the  Higher  Critical  position  is 
tenable  or  not."— The  Rev.  W.  St.  Claib  Tisdaix,  D.D.,  in  The 
Record. 

"  The  book  is  a  most  important  contrilmtiou  to  the  criticism  of 
the   Pentateuch."— r7<€   Tablet. 

"An  interesting  volume  .  .  .  contributing  to  all  points  not  merely 
the  negative  work  of  criticising  critics,  but  the  more  difficult  and 
positive  effort  of  personal  interpretation.  .  .  .  The  style  is  simple 
and  clear,  so  that  it  is  a  book  to  be  appreciated  by  a  very  large 
class  of  readers." — The  Catholic  World. 

"  We  have  on  the  main  question  of  its  subject  matter  only  words 
of  praise  for  this  acute  and  diligent  student.  The  clarity  with 
which  he  exhibits  the  uncertain  textual  basis  of  the  documentary 
hypothesis,  particularly  in  the  matter  of  the  divine  names,  deserves 
the  highest  praise,  and,  though  not  a  new  indictment  against  that 
hypothesis,  is  probably  for  the  first  time  given  an  adequate  and 
systematic  treatment." — Professor  J.  Oscar  Boyd,  in  The  Prince- 
ton Theological  Revietv. 

BIBLIOTHECA  SACRA  COMPANY,  OBERLIN,  OHIO,    U.  S.  A. 
London:  ELLIOT  STOCK,  7  Paternoster  Row,  E.  C. 


BY    THE     SAME    AUTHOR 

The  Origin  of  the  Pentateuch 

A  Comprehensive  Answer  to  the 
Wellhausen  Critics 

150  pages,  8vo 

"  Mr.  Wiener  here  upholds  the  Mosaic  authorship,  subjecting  to 
a  close  critical  and  destructive  examination  the  familiar  docu- 
mentary and  development  theory  of  the  Wellhausen  School." — The 
Times    (London). 

'  "  One  cannot  forbear  to  praise  the  lucid  manner  in  which  Mr. 
Wiener  sets  forth  his  arguments,  or  the  handy  introduction  which 
this  little  volume  forms  to  the  subject  of  the  Higher  Criticism." — 
The  Academy. 

"  We  take  pleasure  in  subscribing  assent  to  this  critic's  general 
lines  of  attack  and  defense  and  in  admiring  the  freshness  with 
which  he  approaches  the  legal  questions  involved." — ^Professor  J. 
Oscar  Boyd,  in  The  Princeton  Theological  Revieiv. 

"  The  book  as  a  whole  imperatively  demands  the  attention  of  all 
scholars,  whatever  may  be  their  views.  The  ablest  and  best  in- 
formed of  Old  Testament  scholars  will  here  find  a  foeman  worthy 
of  their  steel,  one  who  cannot  be  overlooked,  or  set  aside  as  a 
'  negligible  quantity.'  Slowly,  but  surely,  during  the  last  few  years, 
Mr.  Wiener  has  been  compelling  men  to  listen  to  him,  whether  they 
agree  or  not." — ^The  Rev.  Professor  W.  H.  Geiffith  Thomas,  in 
The  Canadian  Churchman. 

"  No  one  who  reads  Mr.  Wiener's  book  on  '  The  Origin  of  the 
Pentateuch '  can  fairly  deny  that  its  plea  for  a  more  conservative 
conception  on  that  subject  than  at  present  so  extensively  prevails 
is  supported  by  facts,  reasoning,  and  learning  which  entitle  it  to 
a  most  respectful  and  attentive  hearing.  The  interest  of  the  work 
lies  in  the  fact  that  it  comes  from  the  pen  of  a  Jew  contending 
for  the  validity  of  his  ancient  Scriptures,  yet  on  lines  most  of 
which  a  Christian  can  heartily  appropriate;  further,  that  the 
writer  is  a  layman  of  highly  trained  mind  in  his  own  legal  pro- 
fession, to  whom  questions  of  law  and  evidence  present  a  more 
familiar  aspect  tlian  they  do  to  the  theologian ;  further  still,  that 
he  is  a  man  of  large  scholarly  equipment,  a  skilled  Hebraist,  well 
versed   in   the   critical    literature  of   the  day,   English,    Continental, 


and  American,  familiar  as  few  are  with  Septuagint,  Samaritan, 
and  otlier  version  lore,  and  capable  of  wielding  a  vigorous,  argu- 
mentative pen.  Tliere  is  nothing  hackneyed  in  Mr .  Wiener's 
style  of  argument.  If  conservative,  he  is  conservative  on  his  own 
lines ;  is  bold,  daring,  ingenious,  fertile  in  suggestion ;  a  writer 
who,  whether  one  always  agrees  with  him  or  not,  invariably  gives 
his  reader  something  worth  thinking  about." — Rev.  Professor  James 
Orb,  D.D.,  in  The  British  Weekly. 

"  We  think  this  book  the  ablest  which  the  author  has  yet  pro- 
duced, and  from  the  first  page  to  the  last  his  arguments  are  clear, 
fair,  and  reasonable.  ...  No  difficulty  is  shunned,  no  hostile  criti- 
cism is  left  untouched." — The  Life  of  Faith. 

"  His  splendid  and  exact  scholarship  is  everywhere  apparent, 
and  he  writes  with  rare  brilliancy  of  diction,  as  well  as  with  co- 
gency of  logic." — The  Homiletic  Revietc. 

"  Mr.  Wiener  has  shown  in  this  and  liis  other  works  points  of 
evidence  based  on  textual  grounds,  of  which  formerly  hardly  any 
account  was  taken.  We  are  convinced  that  he  has  shown  very 
strong  reasons  for  believing  that  often  simpler  explanations  can 
thus  be  given  to  puzzling  Peutateuchal  phenomena  than  by  the 
fanciful  neo-critical  conclusions  for  which  something  like  iner- 
rancy is  claimed.  We  avow  our  sincere  gratitude  to  Mr.  Wiener, 
and  trust  that  he  will  be  enabled  to  continue  his  most  effective 
work." — The  Record. 

N.  B.  A  German  translation  of  this  work  is  in  preparation  and 
will  shortly  be  published.  In  Holland  Dr.  A.  Troelstra  has  writ- 
ten of  it  as  follows  on  page  11  of  "  De  Naam  Gods  in  den  Penta- 
teuch " :  "Aan  (lit  hoek  en  aan  de  Essays  in  Pentateuchal  Criticism 
van  denselfdcn  auteur  heb  ik  menige  opmerking  en  vingervcijzing 
te  danken,  die  mij  van  dienst  tcaren  hij  het  schrijven  van  dit 
opstel.  De  schrijver  is  een  Joodsch  jurist,  en  zijne  opmerkingen 
omtrent  de  tcetgeving  van  den  Pentateuch  lijken  mij  van  het 
hoogste  l)elang." 


BIBLIOTHECA  SACRA  COMPANY.  OBERLIN.  OHIO.  U.  S.  A. 
London :    ELLIOT  STOCK.  7  Paternoster  Row.  E.  C. 


Studies  in  Biblical  Law 


HAROLD    M.   WIENER,  M.A.,  LL.B.,  of  Lincoln's  Inn 
BARRISTER- AT-LAW 

Formerly  a  Senior  Whewell  Scholar  of  the 
University  of  Cambridge 

"A  valuable  volume,  iu  which  he  [the  author]  criticizes,  with 
damaging  effect,  much  of  the  treatment  by  the  Wellhausen  school 
of  the  laws  of  the  Pentateuch,  and  shows  much  cause  for  distrust- 
ing, for  example,  some  of  Dr.  Driver's  arguments  on  the  subject." 
— The  Very  Rev.  Heney  Wage,  D.D.,  Dean  of  Canterbury,  in  The 
Churchman   ( London ) . 

"As  a  whole,  these  '  Studies '  are  of  unusual  worth.  They  ac- 
complish for  certain  Old  Testament  themes  what  Greenleaf,  Lyt- 
tleton,  and  West  did  in  New  Testament  lines." — Review  and  Ex- 
positor. 

"  It  is  bold  and  refreshing  ....  our  writer  goes  over  ground 
trodden  nearly  two  thousand  years  ago  by  the  sages  of  the  Mish- 
nah;  but  he  strikes  out  his  own  line  and  stands  forth  much  more 
logical  than  the  old  Pharisaic  doctors." — The  Evenina  Post  (New 
York). 

"  There  is  no  doubt  that  in  this  examination  of  the  Biblical  jural 
laws  I\Ir.  Wiener  has  opened  up  a  new  and  valuable  source  of  in- 
formation as  to  the  dates  of  the  various  books  of  the  Pentateuch." 
— The  Academy. 

"...  both  novel  and  interesting.  .  .  .  The  method  employed  is 
an  ingenious  and  skillful  application  of  the  principles  of  legal 
interpretation  to  texts  in  apparent  conflict." — Harvard  Latv  Re- 
view. 

"Altogether  the  A'olume  is  one  of  great  importance  and  value." 
— Bihliotheca  Sacra. 

"  The  work  convincingly  s'liows  the  necessity  and  certainty  of  a 
speedy  broadening'  of  the  horiicon  of  inquiry  in  critical  Bible  study." 
— Watchword  and  Truth. 


London:  DAVID  NUTT,   57-59   Long  Acre 


Date  Due 

.^^...^.L— 

!^^;i^-w'wf^.     ■ 

^ 

f) 

BS1225.4.W646 
Pentateuchal  studies, 


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^H               Princeton                                                  Library            ^^^^^^^Bll^^ 

■■■^^^H     lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll   ^^K^ 

Ih "" I^^^^H    lllllillllllllllillllilllllllllllllllllllllll    ^^^H 

^Hluiuii'i       mi^^^^H                    00012  1832     ^^^^^1 

